The Tombstone in Israel’s Military Cemetery since 1948: Israel’s Transition from Collectivism to Individualism 9783110309119, 9783110307986

Citation preview

Yossi Katz The Tombstone in Israel’s Military Cemetery since 1948

Yossi Katz

The Tombstone in Israel’s Military Cemetery since 1948 Israel’s Transition from Collectivism to Individualism

     MAGNES

First edition published by Misrad Ha-Bitachon (Ministry of Defense), Tel Aviv, 2007: ‫לב ואבן‬ ‫סיפורה של המצבה הצבאית בישראל‬ 2006–1948

ISBN 978-3-11-030798-6 e-ISBN 978-3-11-030911-9 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2014 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston & The Hebrew University Magnes Press, Jerusalem Cover illustrations: 1. Embellishments in Kiryat Shaul Military Cemetery typical for the 1990s and the early 2000s (photographer: Yossi Katz, 2006). 2. Uniformity and equality in Mount Herzl Military Cemetery typical for the 1960s (Jewish National Fund Photographic Archives, 1964). Typesetting: Michael Peschke, Berlin Printing: CPI buch bücher.de GmbH, Birkach ♾ Gedruckt auf säurefreiem Papier Printed in Germany www.degruyter.com www.magnespress.co.il

This book is dedicated to those who fell defending their people and their land.

Preface In the Western settlement tableau a cemetery is a place that allows one to get a sense of the cultural locale.¹ This important feature on the landscape is coterminous with the presence of its surrounding human environment and the expanse where the cemetery has been established. One can therefore assume that the extent to which a cemetery is called upon to serve a population with highly variegated cultural characteristics will also be mirrored by the heterogeneity of the components comprising the cemetery setting and first and foremost by the variety of tombstones that constitute the primary and dominant elements of the cemetery. Likewise, changes that occurred over time in the human environment and its condition will find expression in the general appearance of the cemetery and the features of the tombstones. Furthermore, with reference to recent centuries, a cemetery can provide an invaluable source chronicling the saga of previous cultures. While other features of previous cultures tend to be expunged as a result of modernization processes, Western civilization in its entirety accords the cemeteries the trappings of a quasi-sacred place that must be spared irrespective of accelerated development processes of modernity and the demand for vacant lands. However, from a methodological standpoint, just as we can gather insights into the processes that shaped the expanse of items or various communal complexes, a thorough study based first and foremost on primary sources is required. This can shed light on the decision-making process performed by the group or cultural groups who were responsible for shaping the cemetery setting and its spatial organization over the course of time, and this can provide an explanation of the cemetery’s general appearance at a given moment. The tombstone was intended to be the dominant and primary element in cemeteries throughout the Western world and most definitely in the modern era. We would not be distorting reality if we were to term the cemetery a “domicile of tombstones.” Originally the tombstone was intended to denote the burial place of a specific deceased person. In practice, it serves far beyond this: It is the individual component in the inclusive cemetery compound and creates a link between the deceased and his relations; it is the focal point of the burial plot; it is the cultural element that is physically closest to the interred, and an element whose expression is crafted via the dimensions of the tombstone, its architectural shape and the composition of its materials; the deceased’s relatives will not only inscribe the particulars of his identity but will also convey their emotional attitude towards him and commemorate via the description those features of his character 1 Robertson and Richards (2003), and especially the introductory chapter; part one; part two, the second chapter and the sixth chapter.

viii 

 Preface

that they would like to remember and as they would like others to remember; from time to time they will gather round the tombstone for communion with the deceased and they will conserve its appearance and its surroundings. The above description is generally accurate with regards to tombstones in civilian cemeteries, but this is not the case with national military cemeteries. The very phenomenon of military cemeteries erected at the state’s initiative is a new phenomenon. In the United States they began establishing military cemeteries during the 1860s in the wake of the Civil War, whereas in European countries they only began to do this later, following the First World War.² The uniqueness of the military cemeteries is epitomized by their all-inclusive demand for uniformity of the graves and tombstones, and as Mosse emphasizes in his book, Fallen Soldiers: “The war cemeteries of all nations were uniform, wherever they might be located... the graves were uniform and so were the headstones.”³ As we will see below in this work, this does not mean that the uniformity was complete and exists in all the particulars of the military tombstone in each and every country. Nevertheless, the uniformity exists and is prominent in the size of the tombstones, their architectural shape, the distance between one tombstone and the next, the major symbols inscribed on the tombstones and the particulars of personal identity that are also etched on the tombstone. Likewise, the first impression that unfolds before someone who enters British, French, German and American military cemeteries is a view of ordered ranks of tombstones identical in size and spacing from each other, reminiscent of a military parade. The underlying concept behind the uniformity of the tombstones was the homogeneity of the war experience and the unity of purpose for which the soldiers fell.⁴ The work before us attempts to chronicle the saga of the Israeli military tombstone and its immediate vicinity in a period spanning from the establishment of the military cemeteries at the close of the War of Independence (1948) till the present era, 65 years later. Likewise we intend to provide a response to the following questions: How was the model of the Israeli military tombstone determined, in what manner is it unique and diverse from the model of the military tombstone in Europe and the United States, for example; what is the text of the inscription that was prescribed for the military tombstone; what changes were introduced over the years and for what reason; how did the process where relatives added various articles and details to the tombstones in their vicinity occur – a process that led to the formation of the unique landscape that is the Israeli military cemetery. A major portion of the book is devoted to the issue of the inscription on 2 Mosse (1990), pp. 44-47, 78-80. 3 Ibid., pp. 82-84. See also ibid., pp. 84-85, 215-216. 4 See, for example, ibid., pp. 78-80.

Preface 

 ix

the tombstone. Some of the subtopics on this subject are the process that determined the uniform inscription on the tombstones, demands by relatives for changes to this standardized text, deliberations and decisions by various courts on these demands, changes that occurred over the years in the text of the uniform inscription, the addition of a personalized inscription, etc. Comparisons with the inscription on military tombstones in other locations throughout the world allowed us to form a general perspective and to get a better grasp on how matters developed in Israel. The story of the military tombstone in Israel would not be complete without a discussion of other issues that are not directly related but constitute a major component in the history of the Israeli military cemeteries over the years, and therefore we believed that discussing them in this book was merited. We refer primarily to the issue of the differences between military cemeteries and military sections in civilian cemeteries, the issue of “who is a soldier,” i.e., entitled to be buried in an Israeli military cemetery and the changes that occurred regarding such eligibility over time, and the controversy between the authorities and the relatives over concentrating or dispersing military burial. To a large extent, the story of the Israeli military tombstone through the years is also the story of the Division for Commemorating the Soldier in the Defense Ministry, the Public Council for Commemorating the Soldier and the various peregrinations of the Law of Military Cemeteries originally passed by the Knesset in 1950. Indeed, this work could not have been published without an in-depth study utilizing the archives of the division and the council going back to their earliest days, a short time after the establishment of the state. Equally mandatory were an analysis of protocols from the council and its various subcommittees, an examination of the legislative process surrounding the Law of Military Cemeteries and the various amendments to it that were introduced over the years, as well as an analysis of the High Court of Justice deliberations and decisions regarding the inscription. But the story recounting the metamorphoses of the military tombstones and the changes in crafting its locale also reflects the changes that ensued in Israeli society from the establishment of the state until today. The military cemeteries in their current appearance allow us to distinguish among various sections of tombstones because these are organized generally according to periods, and thus they reflect to a large extent the history of Israeli society according to sub-periods. An explanation of the dynamics that took place over time in the context of the military cemetery requires an understanding of the parallel changes that occurred in Israeli society. This work is a developmental work that was performed according to the principles of historic research. Four sub-disciplines were combined: social history, legal history, geographic history, and cultural geography. The book is intended

x 

 Preface

to complete an additional chapter in the study of commemoration in the State of Israel and joins previous and already published works in this field such as the works of Sivan, Shamir, Azaryahu, Lebel and others detailed in the bibliography at the end of the book. At the same time, it constitutes another level in the accumulating research on Israel’s social and legal history as well as a work of contemporary history surveying the Israeli cultural scene and its uniqueness. The completion of this research involved gathering primary sources from historic archives and many current archives, field work involving photographing hundreds of tombstones in many military cemeteries and the analysis of these photographs. Let me emphasize that all photographs of the tombstones provided in the book are intended for illustration purposes alone. As a rule, identifying details were erased or blurred. This work could not have been published without the assistance of many workers in the IDF archives, workers in the Defense Ministry archives headed by Ms. Esther Bezalel, the workers of the State archives, workers in the Knesset archives, the Secretariat of the Supreme Court in Jerusalem, workers in the Division for Commemorating the Soldier and workers in the Yad Labanim Center in Tel Aviv under the management of the late Mr. Motti Shalev. Mr. Shalev provided me with great encouragement towards the completion and publication of the work. They all deserve my deep thanks. A particularly invaluable source was the archive of the late Reuven Mass, who served for many years as a member (and at a certain time even as chairman) of the Public Council for Commemorating the Soldier. This archive is maintained by his grandson, Oren Mass, to whom I also extend my thanks. The Mass archive, that to the best of my knowledge has never been utilized at all, houses primary sources that cannot be found in other locations, such as the earliest series of protocols of the Public Council for Commemorating the Soldier. Thanks are due to the late Mr. Pinhas Yaron, who served for many years as chairman of the Tombstone Subcommittee on the Public Council for Commemorating the Soldier, for granting me his time and for passing on to me invaluable material. Likewise my deep thanks are sent to Ayelet Ohana and to my daughter Michal Prinz Katz for their assistance in the field work of photographing the tombstones and in analyzing the findings of the photographs. The research which led to the writing of this book took place mainly in 2004 when I was on sabbatical in the Department for Jewish Studies at McGill University in Montreal. During that year, I visited many military cemeteries in Canada and in the United States. My thanks are extended to Professor Gershom Hundert, the Chairman of the Department, who allowed me to spend time with members of his department. My children – David, Jonathan, Michal, Meirav, Avihai and Dan and members of their families – closely followed the research stages and the writing and pro-

Preface 

 xi

vided me with great encouragement to complete it. For this my copious thanks. Finally I commend my wife Ruthie who has for a generation accompanied me in the task of building a family and in the field of research. I owe her everything. *** This book was originally published in Hebrew in 2006, under the title Heart and Stone (Lev Vaeven) by the Ministry of Defense Publishing House in Israel. It received positive feedback in academic reviews and in newspapers, and was enthusiastically accepted by the public. Mr. Ehud Barak, the former Defense Minister and Prime Minister of Israel, sent copies of the book to all members of the Public Council for Commemorating the Soldier, and it assisted them during their meetings and decision-making. As a result of the findings revealed in the book it was also decided to define the battles that took place in south Lebanon during summer 2006 as a war (the Second Lebanon War). Accordingly, the tombstones of the fallen soldiers from that war, on which it was initially engraved “Fell in battle in south Lebanon,” were replaced by tombstones carrying the inscription “Fell in the second Lebanon war.” The English edition of the book is being now published by De Gruyter publishing house and Magnes Press. I would like to express my gratitude to all the people who did extensive work on the manuscript. Dr. Amiel Ungar provided the English translation of the manuscript, Ms. Henia Columbus reviewed the translation, and Ms. Joan Hooper edited the book. I would also like to extend my thanks to Mr. Hai Tsabar, Director of the Hebrew University Magnes Press and to Dr. Julia Brauch (De Gruyter Publishing House). Without their many efforts, this book could not have been published. Yossi Katz Kfar Tavor, Israel Remembrance Day for the Fallen of Israel’s Wars, May 2014

Table of Contents Preface 

 vii

Chapter 1 The Institutional Frameworks The Division for Commemorating the Soldier and the Public Council for Commemorating the Soldier   1 Chapter 2 The Spatial Frameworks Efforts to Concentrate the Graves of the Fallen in the Military Cemeteries and the Status of the Military Plots   25 Chapter 3 From a Military Cemetery to a Cemetery for the Security Forces Law and Reality in the Process of Expanding Eligibility for a Military Grave and Tombstone for Those Who Are Not Soldiers   43 Chapter 4 The Tombstone Selecting the Uniform Model of the Military Tombstone 

 82

Chapter 5 The Uniform Inscription The Process of Formulating the Text of the Uniform Inscription on the Military Tombstone (1949-1954)   101 Chapter 6 Preserving the Essential Uniformity The Public Council Confronts Requests by Families for Amending the Uniform Inscription (from the mid-50s until the close of the 70s)   146 Chapter 7 Uniformity is Tested by an Era of Polarization The Public Council versus Petitions by the Families to the High Court of Justice Demanding Substantial Changes in the Uniform Inscription (the early 80s until the early 90s)   169

xiv 

 Table of Contents

Chapter 8 Towards a Revolution Incorporating Personal Expression in the Inscription The Legal Establishment versus the Public Council in the Era of the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty (the First Half of the 90s)   200 Chapter 9 The Inscription Providing Personal Expression The General Legislative Process for Rules Governing the Inscription Providing Personal Expression at the Foot of the Tombstone (the Latter Half of the 90s)   253 Chapter 10 Internal Fissures in the Rule of Uniformity The Families Press for Substantial Changes in the Uniform Inscription and the Location of the Personal Inscription (the 90s until the Start of the Second Millennium)   289 Chapter 11 Everyone Does as He Sees Fit The Continuing Phenomenon of Embellishments – Impairments to Uniformity in the Face of Impotence Displayed by the Establishment   335 Postscript An Unfinished Story The Military Tombstone as a Dynamic Cultural Product in the Scenery of the State of Israel   397 Bibliography 

 412

Index of names and subjects  Index of places 

 422

 416

Chapter 1 The Institutional Frameworks The Division for Commemorating the Soldier and the Public Council for Commemorating the Soldier The Division for Commemorating the Soldier in the Defense Ministry and the Public Council for Commemorating the Soldier are the two institutional bodies that inter alia handle the issue of the military tombstone as well. The Division for Commemorating the Soldier is an executive government body, whereas the Public Council for Commemorating the Soldier is an advisory public body that counsels the defense minister regarding commemoration policy in the most general fashion, and it functions by force of a special paragraph in the Law of Military Cemeteries, 5710-1950. The establishment of the division (that was first called a branch and subsequently a unit and in this book we will make interchangeable use of these terms) preceded the establishment of the Public Council by only a brief time, and the formation of both frameworks is connected with the fallen from the War of Independence.

The Background behind the Establishment of the Division for Commemorating the Soldier and Its Functions From November 29, 1947, the day that the United Nations decided upon the establishment of the State of Israel, and till the end of the War of Independence 4,537 soldiers fell. This total includes soldiers who fell after the establishment of the IDF at the beginning of June 1948, as well as those who fell in the service of the Haganah, the IZL and the Lehi between November 29, 1947 and till the establishment of the IDF and the abolition of the separate frameworks. These casualties were accorded soldier status posthumously and acquired the status of IDF soldiers who had died in action in every sense of the word.¹ The burial sites of the fallen were dispersed over many locations – next to outposts, on former battlefields, the cemeteries of the major cities and smaller communities, etc. In toto this meant 144 burial sites not including the burial places of 328 missing in action.²

1 AA, file 580/56/375, Y. Dekel to S. Avigur, 12.13.1949. See also DMA, folder 6578, file 1065, R. Palint to D. Weinreich, 3.17.1986, where the number of 4,608 dead is noted. 2 Knesset Protocols, 3.20.1950, p. 1059; AA, file 1151/51/199, A. Golad to Colonel K. Kitt, August 1949; AA (above, footnote 1).

2 

 The Institutional Frameworks

With the end of hostilities the senior security echelons addressed the need to find a permanent and orderly solution for interring the fallen in established military cemeteries. Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion emphasized this at the close of June 1949: “One should pursue this activity [handling the burial of the fallen] with full vigor and urgency, till not a single grave will remain without a proper demarcation and suitable arrangements even if this is only on a temporary basis. We owe this both to those who gave their lives for our freedom as well as to the bereaved parents and the honor of the IDF.”³ At the same time there was talk about clustering the fallen in regional cemeteries where many soldiers had been buried during the course of the war: in Kfar Warburg, in Tel Aviv (initially in Nahlat Yitzhak and subsequently in Kiryat Shaul as well),⁴ in Netanya, Afula, Haifa,⁵ Nahariya, Rosh Pina and on Mt. Herzl in Jerusalem.⁶ Subsequently, a special military cemetery was established for minority soldiers at the Druze village of Usafiya on Mt. Carmel. Likewise five military sections were allocated in civilian cemeteries – in Rehovot, Kiryat Anavim, Negba, Degania A and in Safed.⁷ Further discussion ensued on the need for action in commemorating the memory of the fallen in the form of literary commemoration, the establishment of monuments, etc. All this formed the background to the establishment of the Division for Commemorating the Soldier in the Defense Ministry at the close of 1948, a division that functioned for many years under the rehabilitation department (and more recently in the framework of the department for families and commemoration). Aharon Zeev Eshkoli was originally appointed to head the unit, but owing to his death a short time later, Yosef Dekel (Krasner) was appointed in his stead and served in this post till the mid-50s.⁸

3 AA, file 580/56/58, D. Ben-Gurion to Y. Dekel, 6.29.1949. 4 Government Yearbook, 1952-1953 (sums up 1951-1952), p. 44. 5 AA, file 580/56/58, Y. Amir to A. Peri, 3.15.1949, enclosing a protocol from the previous day; ibid., Z. Rotazki to Y. Dekel, 12.7.1949. Already in 1948 a few Christian soldiers were buried in Haifa, and with this in mind it was subsequently decided to concentrate in Haifa the graves of the non-Jewish fallen and those whose identity remained unknown. 6 Till the end of 1949, 2,517 dead were buried in these cemeteries, and in the other 136 cemeteries 1,471 dead were buried. On this see AA (above, footnote 1); letter from Y. Amir (above, footnote 5). 7 Azaryahu (1993), p. 178; AA, file 580/56/58, conclusions that were reached in a consultation between Y. Amir and Y. Dekel (Krasner), 8.17.1949; ibid., file 1151/51/199 (above, footnote 2); the Division for Commemorating the Soldier, 1959-1960; SIA, file 5090, division C-5441, regarding the preliminary intention to concentrate the fallen in a select number of cemeteries. 8 About the origins of the branch, its objectives and roles see in detail Ostfeld (2000), pp. 207 ff. See also AA, file 580/56/58, memorandum from the Division for Commemorating the Hebrew Soldier in the War of Independence, 11.18.1948; ibid., file 580/56/377, announcement to the press and to the radio, 6.21.1949.

The Background behind the Establishment of the Division 

 3

Immediately following its establishment the division engaged in the planning and establishment of military cemeteries, clustering the graves of the fallen in these cemeteries, setting temporary tombstones via temporary wooden markers, designing the permanent military tombstone and determining the text of the inscription on the permanent tombstone.⁹ Subsequently the division would handle everything connected with constructing the tombstones in the military cemeteries (totaling 43 in 2006), laying the burial mounds and engraving the inscriptions on them, the upkeep of the tombstones, handling the military sections and isolated graves in civilian cemeteries, setting up infrastructure for the cemeteries and military sections, as well as maintenance and care for the military cemeteries. Likewise the division was also involved in literary commemoration (such as “Yizkor” volumes and “Scrolls of Fire”), aiding families in finding ways for commemoration, helping organize memorial ceremonies on Memorial Day for those who fell in Israel’s battles and maintaining contact with the bereaved families.¹⁰

Fig. 1: A soldier’s grave in the military cemetery at Kibbutz Ruhama, War of Independence. Source: National Photo Collection.

9 Azaryahu (1993), pp. 165-166; Memorandum of the Branch for Commemorating the Hebrew Soldier (above, footnote 8); AA, file 580/56/58, a survey by Y. Dekel on the handling of the graves of IDF dead, 9.8.1949; ibid., file 580/56/377, Y. Dekel to S. Meirov, 5.23.1949. 10 See in detail Shamir (2003), as well as the website of the Defense Ministry.

4 

 The Institutional Frameworks

Fig. 2: The military cemetery at Kibbutz Ruhama, War of Independence. Source: National Photo Collection.

Fig. 3: Bereaved parents at the mass grave at Nabi Yusha in the Galilee, 1949. Source: Jewish National Fund Photographic Archives.

The Public Council for Commemorating the Soldier 

 5

Fig. 4: Soldiers’ graves at Ramot Naftali, War of Independence. Source: Jewish National Fund Photographic Archives.

The Public Council for Commemorating the Soldier: Its Tasks, Organization and Methods of Appointment Already by April 1949, even prior to the legislation of the Law of Military Cemeteries, 1950, the Defense Ministry executive decided upon the establishment of a public council that would work alongside the Division for Commemorating the Soldier. The job that was earmarked for the council was “to deliberate on questions that are particularly important in commemorating IDF members killed in action and to hear comments from public institutions regarding activities performed by the Defense Ministry.” Prospective council participants were “representatives of all regions in the State of Israel and representatives of the bereaved families.” The council was expected to convene once every two months, and its original session was set for the

6 

 The Institutional Frameworks

beginning of May 1949.¹¹ Nevertheless, it is not clear if this council ever convened in the course of 1949. Furthermore, the draft legislation for military cemeteries that was tabled at the Knesset in December 1949 did not include a paragraph regarding the formation of a council of this type. Representatives of the bereaved families¹² were the ones who demanded that a permanent public council be fixed by law and entrusted with dealing with everything connected to military burial and commemoration of the fallen. They presented their demands to the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee when this committee dealt with the legislative proposal following its passage in the first reading.¹³ The Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee acceded to the demands of the parents,¹⁴ and pursuantly a special paragraph in the Military Cemeteries Law, 5710-1950 directed the Minister of Defense to appoint “for the purpose of this law an advisory public council whose tasks would be stipulated in the ordinances.”¹⁵ Officially the council was established in July 1950, but its first meeting took place only in February 1951.¹⁶ Its entire membership, 11 in number, was composed of bereaved parents.¹⁷ Yosef Dekel, the Director of the Division for Commemorat11 AA, file 580/56/377, A. Peri to the Army Manpower Division, 4.13.1949 (also located ibid., file 852/51/367). See as well ibid., Y. Dekel to the secretaries of the settlement movements, 7.8.1949. 12 During the years 1948-1949 the national voluntary organization Yad Labanim organized itself. It set itself the goals of assuring the commemoration of the fallen soldiers and to care for the rehabilitation of the bereaved families. At first one dealt with a local Tel Aviv organization; however similar organizing simultaneously took place in Jerusalem and in additional communities, and it quickly became a nationwide organization. On this see RMA, “Memories of Bygone Days,” undated; Yad Labanim meeting, 1953; “At the Inception of the Organization,” 1969; protocol of the general meeting of the bereaved parents that convened in Tel Aviv, 1.10.1950 (also located in AA, file 28/60/62); a summary on the origins of Yad Labanim, the end of 1949; the bylaws of the Yad Labanim Association, undated; Aryeh Degani Private Archives, “The Organizational Structure of the Yad Labanim Center,” undated. 13 SIA, protocols of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, 5.23.1950, pp. 7, 10, 13; ibid., 5.29.1950, p. 6; ibid., 6.6.1950, pp. 10, 13; ibid., 6.7.1950, p. 5. 14 Ibid., 5.29.1950; ibid., 6.6.1950 p. 10; ibid., 6.7.1950, p. 5; Knesset Protocols, 7.11.1950, pp. 21692170. 15 Official Documents: The Statute Book, no. 55, 8.1.1950, p. 260. 16 CZA, file A116/166, Y. Dekel to Y. Ben-Zvi, 2.15.1951, enclosed is the protocol of the first council session from 2.6.1951. 17 All members of the committee were bereaved parents although this was not mentioned either in the primary legislation or in the secondary legislation. In the deliberations of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee there was talk of a committee that would include representatives of the municipalities, the Army, the religious institutions and the bereaved parents. From the deliberations of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee and from additional documents it emerges that likewise there was no demand on the part of the bereaved parents that the members of the committee would be exclusively bereaved parents. Defense Minister David Ben-Gurion also opposed this on principle, although it was acceptable to him, as well as to members of the

The Public Council for Commemorating the Soldier 

 7

ing the Soldier, was responsible for the recommendation to the Director General of the Defense Ministry that the entire committee membership be comprised of bereaved parents, who were appointed by a regional quota, and his recommendation was accepted.¹⁸ In this fashion, a tradition lasting for decades was established that all the council members are bereaved parents. Public representatives began to be appointed to the council only from the mid-80s onward and membership was no longer limited to the bereaved collective, but to this very day a majority of the council is composed of representatives of the bereaved.¹⁹ As stipulated in the law (paragraph 12) and as is customary until today, all members of the council are appointed by the defense minister. The defense establishment viewed this as an advantage because “the method via which people are appointed by the defense minister to the Public Council facilitates maintaining a suitable public level, while preserving independence from voters or political functionaries.”²⁰ It is hard to establish what considerations were applied by the ministers over the course of generations in determining the appointments. Did the special nature of the subject dealt with by the council dictate consider-

Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, that representatives of the bereaved parents would be a permanent fixture in the committee. In the end result the proposal of Zalman Aharonowitz, the committee chairman, was accepted, “that we should not specify in the law who would compose the committee, but we would introduce into one of the suitable clauses that for the purpose of this law a public committee with an advisory capacity would be established by the Defense Ministry and the details would be specified in the ordinances. I propose not to go into details about the committee but to establish this principle in the law.” On this see SIA, protocols of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, 6.6.1950, p. 13; ibid., 6.7.1950, p. 5 – the source of the quotation. See also AA, file 28/60/62, Y. Ziv Av to S. Avigur and Y. Dekel, 1.15.1950. Subsequently there were also council members who believed that it would have been preferable if not only bereaved parents were appointed to the council, and in this manner they would have conferred a public character to the council. On this see: AA, file 2849/97/166, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 6.2.1971, the words of Simhoni; ibid., protocol of the Public Council meeting, 12.6.1971, the words of Rahel Yanait Ben-Zvi. 18 AA, file 220/70/211, Y. Dekel to P. Sapir, 12.31.1950. Dekel added that “it appears to me that the establishment of such a committee with which I can now consult on all matters and also present a report to it periodically on all the affairs and difficulties will provide a solution to the argument and demand by the parents for consultation on everything pertaining to this issue.” On this see ibid. See also ibid., file 849/73/150, a list of the original council members, 8.8.1951. 19 DMA, folder 50721, file 3, protocol of the Public Council for Commemorating the Soldier meeting, 6.30.1987, p. 28, from the statement by Chairman of the Council Judge H. Adar (the document is also located in AA, file 638/96/321). 20 With this argument the Defense Ministry also sought to reject the demand by Yad Labanim in 1966 to add six members recommended by Yad Labanim to the council membership. On this see DMA, folder 2881, file 1966, Y. Amir to Z. Dinstein, 12.28.1966; AA, file 1967/93 /397, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 11.27.1966.

8 

 The Institutional Frameworks

ations that differed from the considerations involved in appointing directors to government companies and corporations? This remains a cipher.²¹ Nevertheless, according to archival sources from the 80s, it appears that the composition of the council reflected the preferences of the current minister in appointing many council members from his party and from the coalition parties. But let it be said immediately that one cannot say that political considerations or the political benefit of the minister guided the positions of the council members and decisions taken by the council, and most definitely not on issues handled by the council that form the focus of this work – the military cemeteries and the tombstones in them. A study of thousands of pages of protocols and stenograms and the matterof-fact discussions that characterized the council sessions over the years reveals that the members of the council in every generation preserved their freedom of opinion.²² As we shall see below, only during the 90s were clear rules established for selecting council members. 21 In 1993 Zvi Cohen, the current Deputy CEO of the Defense Ministry, argued that “the defense minister appoints the people but we don’t know what his criteria are to appoint or replace this member or another.” On this see the Ha’aretz Supplement, 7.2.1993, pp. 20-25, and especially p. 25. 22 DMA, folder 4939, file 4, protocol of the Meeting of the Permanent Committee of the Public Council, 9.14.1983, pp. 10, 14; ibid., folder 21495, file 445, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 3.3.1987; ibid., folder 6634, file 558, the document defined as “strictly confidential” addressed apparently to the defense minister by his assistant, undated, but apparently from 1988 or 1989, and dealing with the party affiliation of members of the Public Council; ibid., folder 4939, file 4, protocol of the Meeting of the Permanent Committee of the Public Council, 10.30.1983, pp. 20-22, and see ibid., p. 22, during the discussion in the council over the question should one demand decision-making prerogatives also with regards to the Memorial Day ceremonies practices, the words of council member P. Yaron that he would not want a fortuitous composition of the council, that could change the day after, to set the norms for the Memorial Day ceremonies. He hints that political considerations could influence that fortuitous composition of the council in setting the norms of a national ceremony where one should take into account “all sorts of variations in our population.” The council chairman, who believed that this issue should also be within the purview of the council decisions, responded that “it is true that among everybody sitting here everybody has his own particular outlook, but I am certain that the moment that they are seated in this place, what unites everyone, aside from the pain, is the matter of the state’s welfare, that supersedes all sorts of narrow partisan considerations. And so I don’t fear that on this point such partisan issues or others in this manner or another can decide this matter in such a serious fashion.” See also ibid., folder 21495, file 445, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 3.3.1987. An example of a Public Council meeting that ran counter to the political desire of the defense ministers both from the Likud and the Labor Alignment was the decision by the council during the 80s to refuse authorization for the transformation of the military section at Hurfeish into a military cemetery. On this see ibid., p. 28. On this matter the current chairman of the Public Council, H. Adar, said: “Here we have Knesset Member Zaadin and he remembers the issue with Hurfeish and with the cemeteries to establish a military cemetery for the Druze. What pressure was exerted. From a political standpoint it could be that Minister Rabin wanted it done. Defense

The Public Council for Commemorating the Soldier 

 9

Yitzhak Ben-Zvi was selected to be the first Chairman of the Council (he was a bereaved father), and the first decision taken by the council determined that the Memorial Day for the IDF fallen would occur “always the day prior to Independence Day.” Rabbi Abraham Haim Shaag headed the council from 1950 to 1958. Subsequent chairmen were (according to chronological order) Reuven Mass, Shimon Kushnir, Reuven Avinoam, Yosef Avidar, Yeshayahu Frischman, Judge Pinhas Avishar, Judge Haim Adar, Yisrael Ben Amitai and Yehuda Gavish. In 2006 Shmuel Hazon was tapped for the post. Over the years the number of council members increased from the original 11 and in the beginning of the 21st century the figure stood at 27. The director of the Unit (and subsequently the Department and today the Division) for Commemorating the Soldier serves as coordinator and this practice has been honored to this very day.²³ During its initial 15 years of existence, all members of the council were bereaved parents. By the nature of things this exerted an influence on the relatively advanced average age of the council members, and as Rivka Guber, a council member, noted in 1964, “We don’t have young people among us and we will soon be joining our children.”²⁴ That year marked the first occasion that a bereaved son, and representative of the children’s generation: David Cassouto, whose mother had fallen in the War of Independence, was appointed a council member.²⁵ Likewise, in the early 70s, at the recommendation of the council, a Druze representative (Amal Nassir a-Din) was appointed in order “to reflect the entire spectrum of bereaved parents including the minorities,” especially as the “Druze community had demonstrated its loyalty to the state, bears the burden of sacrifice and recently observed a policy of integrating all those discharged from the Druze divisions in every walk of the country’s activity.”²⁶ This appointment also coincided with the demands that new members of the council had voiced, Minister Arens also wanted to do the same thing... Was this our consideration which minister wants to get involved in this issue? Our consideration was a rational one on how we go about establishing military cemeteries and this is how we should persevere.” 23 Government Yearbook, 1960-1961, p. 75; the Division for Commemorating the Soldier, 19591960, p. 9; CZA, file A116/166, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 1.24.1951; ibid., Y. Dekel to Y. Ben-Zvi, 2.15.1951; RMA, memorandum of the Public Council for Commemorating the Soldier, 6.24.1953; ibid., memorandum by Mass on the formation of the council and its tasks, undated. For confrontations within the council and disagreements between it and the director of the Department see for example ibid., protocol of the Public Council meeting, 12.25.1963; ibid., protocol of the Public Council meeting, 10.25.1961. 24 AA, file 1967/93/397, R. Guber to Y. Amir, 7.31.1964. 25 Ibid., file 2231/97/169, D. Cassouto to L. Eshkol, 12.24.1964. 26 AA, file 2849/97/150, S. Seri to the head of the Rehabilitation Branch, 1.15.1970 – the source of the citation. See also the magazine Discourse of the Bereaved (1975-1976), p. 22; DMA, folder 24204, file 1131, roster of the members of the Public Council, August 1977.

10 

 The Institutional Frameworks

to the effect that the composition of the council must reflect “the entire family of bereavement and all its communal strata and must address widows and orphans and not only bereaved parents.”²⁷ In the early 70s and even before the Yom Kippur War, the Yad Labanim Organization intensified its demands to appoint representatives from its ranks to the Public Council.²⁸ The organization contended vigorously that “unfortunately it seems to us that the contact [of Public Council members] with the general bereaved public is insufficient. In any event they have no contact with the public for whom we serve as the representative organization. Their opinions, so it would appear to us, do not reflect the opinions of thousands of bereaved family members.”²⁹ Following these demands, the current Defense Minister Moshe Dayan appointed a special committee headed by Knesset Member Yisrael Kargman, which recommended that the make up of the Public Council should be drawn up so that “representatives of the Yad Labanim center would be represented on it in a manner conforming to its tasks and public status.”³⁰ The minister accepted the recommendation and ordered that the council be expanded in accordance with the committee’s recommendations. This led to an increase in the number 27 AA, file 2849/97/166, protocol of the Public Council for Commemorating the Soldier’s meeting, 6.2.1971, p. 1, the words of David Cassouto. See also ibid., file 2849/57/101, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 11.13.1966, p. 2, the statement by A. Shvat. 28 AA, file 1967/93/397, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 7.27.1966; ibid., file 2849/97/101, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 11.13.1966. 29 DMA, folder 7117, file 1768, A. Yahel to M. Dayan, 2.15.1973. See also ibid., Y. Kargman to M. Dayan, 2.1.1973. Regarding the great tension prevailing between the Public Council and Yad Labanim and on the clashes between them in the latter half of the 1960s, see in detail in footnote 28. At those sessions M. Bdolach, one of Yad Labanim’s leaders, said: “He claims that he raised the problem of the two organizations already at the first session of the council. Now it is clear, there are two bodies – the Public Council, which is not public, and there is Yad Labanim which is exclusively the parents. The two bodies are not the same body. Why should bereaved families alone handle this, one should seek to educate the next generation, there is a need for a genuine organization, a single body that will unite everybody and all the problems, it is necessary to include people from the education ministry, the religious affairs ministry and other institutions whose assistance is subsequently needed. The body must be established by the Knesset and this should be a commemorative body for generations... for the first time we encountered the issue of non-cooperation in the Knesset, when a mishap occurred as members of the council appeared separately and members of the organization appeared separately regarding the establishment of a monument at the entrance to the Knesset building and this was an impediment to the monument’s erection. If a Public Council exists why doesn’t it involve representatives of the public, that it should also be aware of commemorative matters. Members of Yad Labanim must work together with members of the council and [I am] amazed why cooperation should not be rendered more simple because in any case they are very active.” 30 DMA, folder 7117, file 1768, Y. Kargman to M. Dayan, 2.1.1973.

The Public Council for Commemorating the Soldier 

 11

of council members over the years. As mentioned, membership in the original council appointed in 1950 totaled 11, by 1966 there were already 15 members,³¹ and in 1977 it numbered 25 members. The most veteran member of the council at the time had already been a council member for seven years, and most of the other members had completed a term of three and a half years.³² Slightly more than a decade later, in 1988, there were already nine members who had served for 14 years on the council, two members who had served 16 years, three had served 13 years and two had served for 11 years. The newest member on the council had already completed a five-year term of office.³³ Although the minister did not hurry to promulgate ordinances defining the task of the council as obligated by law, in practice the Public Council alongside the Division for Commemorating the Soldier in the Defense Ministry was involved in everything pertaining to the issue of military cemeteries, the tombstone and the inscriptions, Memorial Day and the sundry forms of general commemoration.³⁴ The defense minister published the ordinances concerning the tasks of the council only in September 1956.³⁵ The minister did not embrace the council’s recommendation to include the subordination of the Division for Commemorating the Soldier to the council in the ordinances and likewise he did not fix the number of council members at 15 as the council had also recommended. In the ordinances he did not mention the issue of numerical size of the council. The ordinances stipulated that the council would advise the defense minis³⁶ ter on activities for commemorating the memory of the soldiers who have fallen 31 DMA, folder 2881, file 1966, Y. Amir to Z. Dinstein, 12.28.1966; ibid., folder 2587, file 665, H. Yisraeli to H. Mosan Levi, 8.6.1967. 32 DMA, folder 24204, file 1131, a list of council members, updated for the month of August 1977. 33 DMA, folder 6634, file 588, a list of members on the Public Council for Commemorating the Soldier, 1987-1988. 34 Azaryahu (1993), pp. 183-184. Ben-Gurion refrained from formulating the ordinances and requested that the council be the one who recommended the ordinances to him. On this see RMA, protocol of the Public Council for Commemorating the Soldier’s meeting, 2.6.1951. See also ibid., protocol of the Public Council meeting, 2.15.1961. 35 The minister accepted only some of the Public Council’s recommendations regarding the ordinances. And compare the ordinances that were published in 1956 in Official Documents: Ordinance Compendium, no. 639, 10.4.1956, p. 82, with RMA, protocol of the Public Council for Commemorating the Soldier’s meeting, 2.1.1956. 36 An explicit clarification that the council had an advisory capacity to the defense minister and not to the Division for Commemorating the Soldier was published in the ordinances at the council’s request only at the end of 1967. On this see Official Documents: Ordinance Compendium, no. 2154, 12.21.1967, p. 479, and compare with the ordinance compendium in the previous footnote. See also RMA, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 1.7.1968. In practice this was the state of affairs even previously.

12 

 The Institutional Frameworks

in battle as detailed below: the management and handling of the military cemeteries; handling the military burial plots in the civilian cemeteries and isolated military graves; determining the shape of the tombstones, the form of the inscription and the manner in which the inscription is performed; establishing monuments and assuring their supervision; the establishments of halls of heroism in various locales throughout the country and determining their shape and content; writing a Torah scroll in the memory of the soldiers who had fallen in the War of Independence; the publication of literary materials about the soldiers who had fallen in the War of Independence, etc. Let us emphasize that in practice, the military cemeteries and the main issue of the military tombstone furnished the focal point of the council’s activity. Upon publication of the ordinances all the subjects related to the tombstones and the inscriptions on them were fixed by law to conform to the practice that had existed since the law was passed in 1950.³⁷ In 1985, with the benefit of accumulated experience, changes that had occurred and the needs that had arisen over time, a new draft text of ordinances regarding the Public Council was formulated in the Defense Ministry. These new ordinances were intended to replace the 1956 ordinances. The draft not only addressed the tasks of the council but also its main work procedures in order to fix by law the work practices of the council which had not yet been authorized by any defense minister. As we shall see below, the reference in the ordinance to the council work practices reflected the sentiment of the current defense minister, Yitzhak Rabin. He wanted the council to be cognizant of the fact that the defense minister also enjoys “a place in the picture” and could not be forgotten and that their major work practices also required his authorization. The advisory roles of the council were expanded in comparison with the 1956 ordinances. Below are the main points of the ordinances: 1. The work procedures of the council: The defense minister would fix the number of council members; the council would elect its chairman; the council would select a permanent committee that would act with the authority of the council in periods between sessions of the council, but the council was allowed to annul the decisions of the permanent committee if a council member appealed the decisions of the committee; the council would act via subcommittees, but any person who felt himself aggrieved by the subcommittee decision could appeal to the permanent committee or to the council plenum; the council was permitted to determine practices for itself in everything concerning its activity and work procedures that had not been specified in the 37 See Official Documents: Ordinance Compendium (above, footnote 35), detailing the subjects that according to the ordinances would fall under the Public Council’s advisory prerogative; DMA, folder 4711, file 2, M. Kleif to the defense minister’s office, 8.30.1956, with an enclosure of the ordinances.

The Public Council for Commemorating the Soldier 

 13

ordinances. 2. The areas to which the advisory functions of the council applied: the shape of the tombstones, their size, and the text of the inscription; the management and maintenance of the military cemeteries; rules of conduct in military cemeteries and media coverage of military funerals; proclaiming a military cemetery; principles and ordinances to commemorate the memory of those who fell in Israel’s wars and establish memorial sites and monuments; the topics of ceremony and practice at military cemeteries and state memorial sites in official and public events; the publication of literary and artistic works about those who fell in battle and the combat tradition; other educational, literary and cultural programs on topics tied to Israel’s wars; methods for honoring the memory of the fallen in the various Army units; the observance of the law regarding a remembrance day for those who fell in Israel’s wars; advising the defense minister on any other topic related to the law either at the council’s initiative or when it was requested to do so.³⁸ Let it again be emphasized that the military cemeteries and chiefly the military tombstone were the centerpiece of council activities. However, the aforesaid ordinances were never ratified by the defense minister, and therefore the ordinances of 1956 remain in force to this very day, without any reference whatsoever in primary Knesset legislation and secondary legislation to such issues as the number of council members, composition, term of service. Furthermore, some of the advisory roles detailed in the 1956 ordinances are no longer relevant. Council decisions still only enjoy the status of recommendations to the defense minister, and they come into force only if they received his authorization. Nonetheless it is clear that over the years the council enjoyed a special status among the defense ministers and senior ministry officials, who are thereby to a large extent spared involvement in the difficult and sensitive matters addressed by the council since its establishment. The defense ministers in almost every case authorized the recommendations of the council.³⁹ This tendency was strengthened by the position of Moshe Arens, the defense minister in the early 80s, who announced that he would accept every recommendation proposed by the council, as well as the position of the current chairman, Judge Adar, that given the many activities of the minister and while his considerations may differ from those of the council, however, “there is not a more skilled, qualified objective and sensitive body that can deliberate and decide on these issues than the body 38 DMA, folder 4939, file 4, N. Pearlman to the head of the Division for Commemorating the Soldier, 3.28.1985, a draft of the ordinances enclosed; ibid., an additional draft from 1985 signed by Rabin; ibid., folder 50721, file 3, N. Pearlman to H. Yisraeli, 7.4.1986, a draft of the ordinances from 1985 is enclosed; ibid., folder 6634, file 558, R. Stovitzki to H. Yisraeli, 2.12.1987. 39 Meetings between the council plenum and the minister took place on rare occasions.

14 

 The Institutional Frameworks

composed of those people sitting here [the council], with their accumulated experience and their past.”⁴⁰ This logic underpinned the Defense Ministry initiative in 1983 to propose an amendment to the Law of Military Cemeteries, 5710-1950 and confer upon the council the status of a “a decision-making public council whose decisions on all matters related to the tasks entrusted to it under the ordinances will be final and in this manner there will be no need to obtain the authorization of the defense minister in each and every case.”⁴¹ However, this initiative was opposed by the Justice Ministry on the grounds that “it is unreasonable that a public council whose composition is unknown and there is no obligatory link between it and the government, should have the final say on matters that the law sought to regulate and were entrusted to the defense minister for execution.”⁴² Nevertheless, the Defense Ministry did not give up, and a year later proposed granting the council decision-making prerogatives on some of the topics that it dealt with, whereas on other issues to continue providing it with purely an advisory capacity. The subjects that according to the proposal would have awarded the council decision-making powers were “the shape and size of the tombstones, the text of the inscription and manner of engraving the tombstones; norms regarding the management and maintenance of the military cemeteries and their handling; norms regarding the behavior and practice in the military cemeteries and the coverage of military funerals.”⁴³ In May 1984 Defense Minister Arens asked the cabinet secretary to table a draft law before the appropriate ministerial committee, but a few months later the new Defense Minister Yitzhak Rabin made it clear that he opposed handing over to the council any decision-making power

40 DMA, folder 4939, file 4, protocol of the Permanent Committee of the Public Council meeting, 9.14.1983, p. 2, from the words of Chairman H. Adar. See also ibid., protocols of the Permanent Committee of the Public Council meeting, 10.30.1983; ibid., folder 21495, file 445, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 3.3.1987, pp. 23, 27. 41 SIA, file C 9042/2, M. Kochanowski to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and others, 5.23.1983, enclosed is a memorandum of the draft law. The citation is from paragraph C3. See also DMA, folder 4939, file 4, N. Rashba to N. Schayek, 9.2.1983, a draft of the proposed legislation is enclosed; ibid., protocol of the Public Council, 9.14.1983. 42 SIA, file GL 21767/15, S. Dorner to S. Guberman, 6.1.1983. 43 SIA (above, footnote 41), M. Arens to the Cabinet Secretary, 5.16.1984, enclosed is a draft of the proposed law on military cemeteries, amendment no. 2 (Prerogatives of the Public Council) – the source of the citation. See also DMA, folder 4939, file 4, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 9.14.1983; ibid., protocol of the Permanent Committee of the Public Council meeting, 10.30.1983; ibid., N. Rashba to N. Schayek, 11.22.1983, enclosed is a memorandum of the draft law; ibid., N. Pearlman to M. Kochanowski, 5.9.1984, enclosed is the draft of the proposed legislation; YLA, protocol of the Permanent Committee of the Public Council meeting, 5.3.1984.

The Public Council for Commemorating the Soldier 

 15

whatsoever and demanded to reserve all the prerogatives for himself, as per the original law’s directives.⁴⁴ Hence, the council still enjoys only a deliberative and advisory capacity on all matters that were detailed above, but the conclusion of Judge Adar regarding Rabin, “the truth of the matter is that the minister generally endorses the recommendations,” holds true to a very large extent for other defense ministers.⁴⁵ Since its establishment and for many years the council worked without any internal bylaws (aside from the ordinances that were fixed in 1956 by law) that determined its work procedures and norms.⁴⁶ This matter led to conflicts between 44 SIA (above, footnote 43); DMA (above, footnote 43), protocol of the Public Council meeting, 9.14.1983; ibid., N. Rashba to N. Schayek, 5.17.1984, enclosed is a draft of the proposed law, amendment no. 2; ibid., A.Y. Shafat to the legal advisor of the defense establishment, 6.13.1984. See also DMA, folder 50721, file 3 (appears also in AA, file 638/96/321), protocol of the Public Council meeting, 6.30.1987, p. 16, where the current chairman Judge H. Adar notes, regarding the decision by Rabin: “During the time of Minister Arens, this matter [the transfer of decision-making prerogatives to the council] appealed to him. Along came Minister Rabin and said no. I from a public standpoint am responsible to the Knesset and to the entire public and I must have the final word, and this is a custom that has prevailed under the existing law that this council advises the Minister, nothing more. We all in all are advising the minister…” 45 SCA, High Court of Justice file 5843/97, Protocol no. 1 of the meeting of the Legislative Subcommittee of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, 8.28.1996, p. 18, citation from the statement by Z. Gross. See also DFCSA, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 8.17.1995. The defense ministers were also accused of serving as a rubber stamp for determinations by the committee. On this see DFCSA, protocol of the Permanent Committee of the Public Council meeting, 6.21.1995; SCA, High Court of Justice file 5843/97, Response Affidavit, 12.15.1997, pp. 10-11. Below we will see that Defense Minister Barak adopted in 2001 a decision of the council while totally unaware that in the process he had annulled a decision of the defense minister from 1977. Judge Adar as well, who served as chairman of the Public Council for 10 years during the 80s and disagreed with Defense Minister Rabin on a number of fundamental issues, did not hesitate to affirm in connection with Rabin “the truth is that in general the minister adopts recommendations.” On this see DMA, folder 50721, file 3 (appears also in AA, file 638/96/321), protocol of the Public Council meeting, 6.30.1987, p. 16, the words of H. Adar. See in detail DMA, folder 6634, file 587, protocol of the Permanent Committee of the Council meeting, 1.29.1989, regarding a deviant case where the minister did not accept the council’s position not to include in the “Yizkor” memorial book a reserve soldier who in the framework of his service slept at home, and one evening the house collapsed and the soldier was killed. The council’s position rejected the inclusion of the soldier in the book, whereas the legal advisor to the defense establishment advised the defense minister to do the very opposite, and this is precisely what the minister decided. The legal argument of the advisor was that the Law of Military Cemeteries does not deal at all with commemoration, and therefore the ordinances based on the law and that empowered the council to advise the minister on commemorative matters lack any force. The minister’s decision, and especially the legal explanation, was adopted to the great displeasure of the council. See also YLA, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 12.29.1988, pp. 30, 42-44. 46 See the unauthorized drafts of bylaws that were intermittently proposed in the council and

16 

 The Institutional Frameworks

the members regarding norms, internal disputes and even resignations;⁴⁷ members did not always persevere in attending meetings and no sanction was imposed on them for this delinquency. Members served on the council for many years, with all that this signified. Thus for example Reuven Mass served on the council 21 years, from the day it was established till 1972, while Yehudit Simhoni served 15 years.⁴⁸ Only in February 1972 did the council ratify a bylaw proposal drafted by one of its committees, and these are its most significant passages: the council will not appoint more than 21 members and no less than 11; once every four years a number of members equal to a third of the current total of council members would resign, and the defense minister would appoint others in their stead and in this manner the total number of members would oscillate between the minimum number to the maximum number of members noted above; the four-year timetable for resignation would begin in May 1973 and in this manner the second resignations would occur in 1977 and so forth; the order of resignation would be according to seniority of service on the council first in first out; the chairman of the council would be elected for a term of four years and could be reelected for a term of an additional three years; the council would convene at least four times a year,⁴⁹ and it could establish subcommittees (such as a tombstone subcommittee) to deal with current matters; decisions were taken by a majority, and the chairman held a tie-breaking vote in case of a deadlocked vote; the correspondence on them in RMA, memorandum on “The Tasks of the Council,” early 1955; ibid., Y. Dekel to R. Mass, 8.9.1954; ibid., protocol of the Public Council meeting, 2.1.1956; ibid., protocol of the Public Council meeting, 11.12.1957; ibid., protocol of the Public Council meeting, 3.9.1954; ibid., protocol of the Public Council meeting, 5.22.1956; ibid., protocol of the Public Council meeting, 3.13.1956; ibid., S. Seri to the Defense Minister’s office and others, 9.23.1971; AA, file 2849/97/150, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 2.22.1970; ibid., file 2849/97/166, the Division for Commemorating the Soldier, bylaw proposal for the Public Council; ibid., protocol of the Public Council meeting, 6.2.1971; ibid., S. Seri to members of the Public Council, August 1971; DMA, folder 2319, file 2260, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 9.14.1971 where the council bylaws were discussed. 47 AA, file 1967/93/397, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 1.22.1964; ibid., A. Kalir to Y. Amir, 7.2.1964; ibid., R. Guber to Y. Amir, 7.31.1964; ibid., R.Y. Ben-Zvi to L. Eshkol, 10.11.1964; ibid., file 2231/97/169, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 2.17.1964; ibid., file 1967/93/397, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 5.26.1966; ibid., protocol of the Public Council meeting, 7.27.1966; ibid., protocol of the Public Council meeting, 11.27.1966; ibid., file 2849/97/101, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 11.13.1966. 48 AA, file 2849/97/166, Y. Simhoni to M. Dayan, 6.1.1971. Yehudit Simhoni left of her own volition despite the pressures applied by the minister and the Division for Commemorating the Soldier that she should continue her work. On this see DMA, folder 2319, file 2260, S. Seri to Y. Simhoni, 6.27.1971; ibid., M. Dayan to Y. Simhoni, 6.25.1971. 49 In practice the council convened a few times a year. On this see DMA, folder 4078, Spiegel file, draft of an affidavit by council member P. Yaron.

The Public Council for Commemorating the Soldier 

 17

a member who did not participate in the council’s sessions on four occasions without a legitimate reason would have his membership on the council lapse; the head of the Division for Commemorating the Soldier would be a permanent participant at council sessions, while the same courtesy was extended to the chairman of the council who could participate at the sessions of the Division for Commemorating the Soldier. Likewise the bylaws ruled that the council’s role was to advise the defense minister on everything related to commemorating the memory of soldiers who fell in Israel’s wars as detailed in the previous ordinances.⁵⁰ In 1977 certain amendments were introduced to the bylaws as follows: The maximum number of council members was raised to 25 and the minimum number was raised to 15, members slated to leave the council could be appointed for an additional four years,⁵¹ the council chairman’s second term was extended by an additional four years, and a permanent committee of seven members was set up and authorized by the plenum to operate in periods between plenum sessions.⁵² The membership of the permanent committee generally included the chairmen of the Yad Labanim organization and the IDF Widows and Orphans Organization.⁵³ Prior to this, a tombstone commission had already been appointed by the council and its major involvement was to hear the appeals of bereaved families regarding the text of the inscription that was determined by the Division for Commemorating the Soldier. An appeal by relatives on the decisions of the Tombstone Subcommittee was referred to the Permanent Committee and the council plenum for deliberation.⁵⁴ Let us add that the Tombstone Subcommittee was not active in all those years, and the appeals of the family were referred directly to the permanent committee and the council plenum.⁵⁵ The bylaws that went into force in 1973 and the updated bylaws of 1977 were never submitted to the defense minister for ratification, and in this manner Defense Minister Rabin could inform the council in early 1987 that he did not 50 RMA, decisions of the Public Council meeting, 2.22.1972; ibid., the final draft of the bylaws that was ratified, 1972; ibid., a summary of the decisions of the Public Council during the years 1970-1973, decisions regarding the bylaws, 2.22.1972, enclosed is a ratified set of bylaws. 51 Although it was not clear from the bylaws if one may prolong the duration of the term by a single additional term alone, or if each time one may prolong it by an additional four years. The deputy legal advisor to the defense establishment, N. Rashba, commented on this in DMA, folder 24204, file 1131, letter to Y. Shahaf, 11.17.1980. 52 In practice the committee convened as needed and sometimes also “once a week or once every two weeks.” On this see the DMA, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 7.14.1991, p. 8, citation from the words of P. Yaron. 53 DFCSA, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 2.26.1997, p. 28. 54 DMA, folder 24204, file 1131, N. Rashba to Y. Shahaf, 11.17.1980, enclosed are the updated bylaws of the council from 1977. 55 DFCSA, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 2.26.1997, p. 27.

18 

 The Institutional Frameworks

forfeit his right to reappoint for an additional term (without any term limits) members who had completed a single term of four years. Therefore he demanded that the council convene and ratify an additional clause to the bylaws to the effect that one should not “derogate from the authority of the defense minister to renew and/or extend a council member’s term of appointment, according to the discretion of the minister,” he similarly demanded that the bylaws be submitted for his authorization after adding this clause.⁵⁶ This was a direct outgrowth of Rabin’s policy from the close of 1984, as we witnessed above, not to award any decision-making prerogatives to the council. As the person who by law bore total responsibility for the entire matter, he was unwilling to waive the prerogatives that had been awarded him. Let us add that subsequently once the clause that Rabin demanded had been added, he ratified the bylaws.⁵⁷ For this reason it should come as no surprise that Rabin’s decisions, and especially those that conveyed his intent that he and not the council would appoint the chairman, aroused resentment among some council members. P. Alufi commented bitterly: “Matters are clear, the minister appoints, the minister fires, restores, etc., the question is what are we doing here, what is the role of the council? Does it have any authority at all to deliberate... whoever appoints has the right to fire or transfer, that is self-evident, and therefore what precisely is the council’s role, what do we have to do here? We cannot decide which one of us is going to resign or not resign, but it is the minister who will decide. There is definitely a list when each and every one of us will be appointed and in this manner he will make a reckoning, either he will extend the term by another four years or he will say ‘no thank you I’m now appointing someone else in your stead,’ so what do we have to do here?”⁵⁸ The comments of the current chairman, Judge Adar, were even harsher and he viewed the minister’s decision to be improper since it blocked the replacement (rotation) that was customary and obligatory in every public body and led to the “politicization of the council, they will choose the people they want and the way they want.”⁵⁹ Others took issue with Adar and pointed out that changes in defense ministers also occurred,⁶⁰ but they too leveled criticism at the minister on the rotation issue. Additionally the renewed appointments of veteran members were criticized for creating an unbalanced rep56 DMA, folder 6634, file 558, Y. Rabin to A. Fink, 2.15.1987. 57 YLA, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 12.27.1993, pp. 37-39; DFCSA, protocol of the Permanent Committee of the Public Council meeting, 6.21.1995, p. 26; DMA, folder 2765, file 1397, E. Rubinstein to R. Vardi, 7.3.1995, enclosed is a draft of the bylaws drawn up by the council. 58 DMA, folder 21495, file 445, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 3.3.1987, p. 14. See also YLA, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 2.24.1985, pp. 20-23. 59 DMA, protocol of the Public Council meeting (above, footnote 58), pp. 15-16. 60 Ibid., p. 20.

The Public Council for Commemorating the Soldier 

 19

resentation of the bereaved from various wars: “These new people, by the way, are not new people from the last war, these are not new families but the very same people, the old war horses, are being reinstated. On this matter I would recommend to the defense minister to include families that one could say are younger, meaning from my period, I’m the only person from this war, namely Peace for Galilee [the First Lebanon War], although there are other fathers and mothers.”⁶¹ It would appear that Rabbi Moshe Haim Weiler, who lost his two children and served on the council from 1974, was the person who, at the session of March 1987, raised the most penetrating question on this issue and which was apt at the moment, in the past and for the future: “In the final result the defense minister does not know the 17,000 bereaved families, who advises him to select the council? By what criteria are the people sitting here chosen? Every person should say what he has on his heart and in his mouth and one can accept it or reject it. I’m not asking this question out of a whim although it may be totally naive, and the final result I assume is that he chooses and there is someone there to advise him. For otherwise how does it happen for example that all these good people here are from the elites, and not from the middle classes and heaven forfend from the lower elements. Who decides on this matter?”⁶² As we shall see below, a change occurred only in 1998 when clear criteria for the selection process and the appointment of council members were fixed. If even within the council criticism was voiced about its composition, its ability to represent the family of bereavement and lack of internal turnover, it is hardly surprising that others in the family of bereavement similarly criticized the council and viewed it as a petrified body that is not open and sensitive to societal changes and what they mandated.⁶³ The stark truth is that the council did 61 Ibid., p. 22. 62 Ibid., pp. 24-26. As may be recalled, even in 1993 the deputy director general of the Defense Ministry argued that the criteria employed by the minister in the selection of council members or their replacement by others were unknown. He admitted that there were no young people on the council, but “they represent a broad spectrum of the public.” On this see his comments in the Ha’aretz Supplement (above, footnote 21). It is not clear what was the basis for his determination that the council members represented the public, and in general whether it was possible to employ terms such as representation in the context of bereavement and the family of bereavement. 63 See for example, DMA, folder 4078, the Spiegel file, A. Spiegel to Y. Mordechai, 8.15.1996. In an investigative report conducted by D. Shalit and that was published in Ha’aretz supplement at the beginning of July 1993 (above, footnote 21), Shalit referred to complaints voiced by the parents to the effect that the council represented a specific population group typified by the spirit of 1948, and that the vast majority of the members were men of the Ashkenazi establishment, aged 60-70, parents to the dead from the previous wars, from the 1948 war till the Yom Kippur war. In their opinion, there was no representation for parents aged 45-50, whose children were killed in recent years. Indeed, there was truth to their argument. At a council session that took place at

20 

 The Institutional Frameworks

not take action on membership replacement even when obligated to do so under the bylaws that it itself had formulated. The chairman in the early 90s, Yisrael Ben Amitai, displayed sensitivity to criticism on the issue that emanated from the family of bereavement. However, it appears that he tried to take the easy way in clearing up the mess, and it did not succeed. This is what Ben Amitai had to say before the council at the close of December 1993: My esteemed colleagues, this council’s membership was appointed at the time by the defense minister and there are certain bylaws governing the composition of the council, its prerogatives and the manner in which it formulates its position and submits it as a suggestion to the defense minister. Although it is written, it somehow escapes those who have to bring it to the defense minister’s attention... it is written there that once every four years one must renew a person’s appointment, should he so desire and in practice everybody sitting here, aside from those who are totally new... Everybody is sitting here on the council by virtue of a previous appointment, which does not invalidate them from being here because they haven’t been dismissed, but this is not... totally in order legally or ministerially... and I would not want somebody to suddenly raise the legal question: who appointed you to sit and deliberate?... I propose that all members of the council, holding legal and justified appointment, should remain council members and renew their appointment, save for those who have already resigned from their own good will or that they should submit a request that they want to finish up… there are people here who have been here 20 and more years... as wine ages it improves. There are people whom I wouldn’t want to replace... neither I nor [others].... want someone to leave his place for somebody else, but matters must be put in order. We also won’t go by the literal text of the ordinances, that someone who does not appear at x number of sessions, should be viewed as a person who expressed his desire to resign. But I definitely turn to you with the request, that any person who feels his time is up or has reached the appropriate stage then [he should announce his resignation] and I request that this should be affected within two weeks...⁶⁴

Ben Amitai’s request did not produce the expected results – “no one responded.”⁶⁵ Two years later, in 1995, the State Comptroller in his annual report pointed to these deficiencies: The Public Council for Commemorating the Soldier did not operate according to its own bylaws on the matter of appointing council members and the duration of their term... the bylaws specify that the council will be comprised of a number of members that will not exceed 25 and will not go below 15, who will be appointed by the defense minister. At the that time council member Hannah Rivlin remarked that, “over the long years that we’re sitting in this committee, which we did not enter as youngsters, we have in the interim become increasingly elderly, and everybody knows each other for 23 or 20 years…” On this see YLA, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 12.27.1993, p. 31. 64 YLA (footnote 63 above), pp. 37-39. 65 DFCSA, protocol of the Permanent Committee of the Public Council meeting, 6.21.1995, p. 28, from the statement by Council Chairman Y. Ben Amitai.

The Public Council for Commemorating the Soldier 

 21

time that this check was conducted the council totaled 28 members, three over the limit specified in the bylaws. The bylaws also stipulate that once every four years a number of members equivalent to a third of the current total membership should depart the council and the defense minister should appoint others in their stead... from the documents it emerges that in May 1995 seven out of the 28 members of the council had served over 20 years, four members over 12 years and five for eight years. The defense minister and Defense Ministry must guarantee that the appointment of council members and the duration of their service should be performed according to the bylaws.⁶⁶

Similar criticism of the council was voiced by other parties, including a petition to the High Court of Justice against it at the same time regarding the inscription on the tombstones.⁶⁷ For that reason Ben Amitai requested that council members, attorneys by profession, solve the problem by working out a new set of bylaws. In summer 1995 a draft for the new bylaws was actually completed.⁶⁸ The new bylaws resembled the amended bylaws in 1977,⁶⁹ save for significant changes in two paragraphs – the clause governing the number of council members and the clause on the replacement of members.⁷⁰ The changes relative to the old bylaws were intended to overcome the deficiency that the State Comptroller and others had already discovered. Furthermore, most astonishingly they were intended to allow the veteran council members who had served on it over 20 years to continue and serve without time limitations, if of course no impediment was posed by the minister. First of all, it was determined that the council could appoint between 15 and 29 members (as opposed to the 1977 bylaws that fixed a ceiling of 25 members), in this manner the need to dismiss three members was circumvented.⁷¹ Secondly, it was determined that all current council members could serve an additional year from the time that the new bylaw went into force, and at the end everybody would finish their job.⁷² However the defense minister was permitted (according to the new bylaws) to extend anyone’s appointment for

66 The State Comptroller (1995), p. 830. 67 DFCSA (above, footnote 65), pp. 21-22; Ha’aretz, 2.20.1996. 68 DFCSA (footnote 65 above), pp. 20-32; DMA (footnote 57 above). 69 See the draft of the bylaws in DMA (above, footnote 57). 70 DFCSA (above, footnote 65), pp. 25-26. 71 Ibid., p. 24. 72 In this fashion, the drafters of the bylaws overcame “the question that confronted us how not to provoke a situation where when we would come to Amal [Nasser A-Din] and tell him personally… you are winding up your role. Why? Because you’re here 23 years. And therefore we found this formulation that at the end of the year all members of the council are actually winding up their current tenure in office and the defense minister is drafting appointments. He of course can renew the appointment of this person or the other, because there’s no limitation on this.” On this see ibid., p. 26.

22 

 The Institutional Frameworks

a period of five years and continue renewing the appointment without any limitation.⁷³ In the text of the bylaws: “Every council member will be appointed for a term of five years. The minister of defense is allowed to appoint any member upon the conclusion of his term of appointment to additional terms.”⁷⁴ The legal advisor to the Defense Ministry, Elyakim Rubinstein (subsequently the State Attorney General and a Supreme Court Justice), observed the implicit absurdity in the option to extend terms of office without limitation: “From the standpoint of public correctness it would appear proper that the term of office should be limited.” Rubinstein wanted to limit service on the council to three consecutive terms of office, in other words 15 years (that would begin only a year after the bylaws went into effect), and it was so decided in the end result.⁷⁵ In February 1996, the current defense minister, Shimon Peres, ratified the bylaws as submitted to him by the council contingent on Rubinstein’s demands and in this manner the new bylaws went into effect and the bylaws of the 70s were rescinded.⁷⁶ As stated, the countdown of three terms (15 years) was to have begun in 1997 in a manner that would have allowed even the veterans on the council who served more than 20 years to begin a fresh countdown of their years of service and attain a term of office spanning decades. This matter, as well as prolonging the term of office from four to five years, permitting its extension to 15 years, the fact that seven members had actually served more than 22 years, four members served more than 13 years and six more than nine years, together with the failure to establish in the bylaws procedures for replacement, and granting the council the option to amend its bylaws with the minister serving as a rubber stamp – all these proved justifiably unacceptable to some of the bereaved families. They demanded the intervention of the State Attorney General and the State Comptroller to guarantee “rejuvenating the members of the council to guarantee representation to bereaved families from the recent period whose opinions reflect the current zeitgeist.”⁷⁷ It is hard to say that the response by the Defense Ministry to these complaints had any substance. Most importantly, the Defense Ministry fully realized that it had to stand in the breach and avoid a situation of prolonged and implausible terms of office and ensure replacement and rejuvenation in the

73 Ibid., pp. 24-29; DMA (above, footnote 57). 74 DMA (above, footnote 57). 75 Ibid. 76 DMA, folder 1610, file 1275, S. Peres to Y. Ben Amitai, 2.15.1996. 77 DMA, folder 2765, file 1397, L. Tsoriano in the name of the bereaved families to the State Attorney General, 7.29.1996. See also ibid., G. Saar to Z. Gross, 9.19.1996; ibid., Z. Gross to the head of the Rehabilitation Branch, 9.27.1996.

The Public Council for Commemorating the Soldier 

 23

ranks.⁷⁸ The option to serve beyond 15 years was checked.⁷⁹ Thus the head of the Rehabilitation Branch could announce in January 1997 that “six out of the council members are serving over 15 years and they will conclude their functions in another two months... with the substitutions that will be implemented shortly, three quarters of the council members will be serving less than eight years.”⁸⁰ In May of that same year the situation rested as follows: 12 of the 27 council members had served no longer than five years, nine had served between five and 10 years and six between 10 to 15 years. In other words, 78% of the council members had served on it for less than 10 years.⁸¹ In 1998 another two members, whose term of service on the council had reached 15 years, departed. The protest therefore made a substantial contribution to the rejuvenation of the council. But the complainant families did not suffice with the evasive answers of the State Attorney General, and they petitioned the High Court of Justice against the defense minister and the council. The High Court of Justice hinted to the state that the petition was justified, and presumably current Defense Minister Yitzhak Mordechai decided to make a sweeping change to the appointment method for council members and institute transparency and publicity in everything connected to the council: They would publish the list of council members and circulate among the bereaved families the minutes of the council decisions that were adopted from time to time. In early 1998, the state obligated itself before the High Court of Justice to implement all these changes.⁸² What were the changes in the election process? The power of appointment still remains in the hands of the minister, but he pledged that “the balance in the composition of the council would be preserved in a manner that would reflect Israeli society while placing special emphasis on maintaining contact with the family of bereavement: In this fashion, the composition of the Public Council would in its majority continue to be members of the bereaved families, and would be representative of the various strata of Israeli society in terms of the members’ age, gender, location, ethnic communities and various sectors of Israel’s citizens, the various wars as well as the time and circumstances when the members’ relatives fell in the wars, in combat operations, terror attacks, training accidents, 78 Ibid., a list of members of the Public Council on 5.8.1995 and the duration of their service on the council; ibid., Z. Gross to N. Pearlman, 11.5.1996; ibid., Z. Gross to O. Chico, 9.27.1996; ibid., O. Chico to Z. Gross, 10.29.1996; ibid., the bylaws of the Public Council; ibid., Z. Gross to G. Saar, 11.7.1996; ibid., N. Pearlman to Z. Gross, 11.10.1996; ibid., G. Saar to L. Tsoriano and S. Wechselbaum, 1.11.1997. 79 Ibid., O. Chico to Z. Gross, 5.13.1997. 80 Ibid., O. Chico to Z. Gross, 1.2.1997. 81 See above, footnote 79. 82 YLA, High Court of Justice 4678/97, the ruling of the High Court of Justice, 3.5.1998. Enclosed are the obligations of the state on 2.1.1998 to implement the changes.

24 

 The Institutional Frameworks

and traffic accidents.” The heads of the Yad Labanim Organization and the IDF Widows and Orphans Organization would continue to serve on the council by token of their posts, but the minister agreed that some of the appointments would come from a list of candidates that the organizations would submit to him provided that the organizations would choose the candidates in a proper fashion. The minister also acceded to examining every candidacy even if it was not presented by the organizations. In any event, a pledge was made that the minister would consider in the election process “the candidate’s characteristics including the suitable probity and the sensitivity and consideration that were mandatory for the issues under discussion together with the ability to rise above private pain and adopt a public minded and inclusive approach that reflected the need of all the bereaved families.”⁸³ With reference to the council’s work norms we must note that our research has discovered that from the time the council was established through the 70s it was generally customary to write protocols of the council sessions. From the early 80s protocols were not written, rather the sessions were taped and transcribed. In the subcommittees, including the Tombstone Subcommittee, protocols were never written. In the Permanent Committee no protocols were written till the end of the 80s, and then they began to tape and transcribe these sessions as well. In 1991 the current council chairman, Judge Haim Adar, indeed noted to Defense Minister Arens that “up to now we have an oral law, we did everything on the hush-hush... And we ourselves didn’t keep notes regarding those decisions and the grounds for those decisions on all sorts of requests that were submitted to us.” Whereas Pinhas Yaron, the chairman of the Tombstone Subcommittee, noted in an affidavit to the High Court of Justice in 1983 that “the Public Council is not a court or a quasi-legal body in the accepted sense, that takes testimony and issues findings, neither it nor its subcommittees tend to maintain protocols of the deliberations.”⁸⁴ It is hard to say that the practice not to put clear justifications for the subcommittee decisions in writing was a proper norm, and the High Court of Justice already pointed this out to the council in 1983.⁸⁵ For the purposes of our research we used the transcribed protocols that have been maintained since the 80s. 83 See above, footnote 82. 84 DMA, folder 27348, file 992, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 5.13.1991, with Defense Minister M. Arens participating, p. 2 – the source of the first quotation; SIA, High Court of Justice 556/83, affidavit by P. Yaron, 11.22.1983 – source of the second citation; YLA, protocol of the Public Council for Commemorating the Soldier meeting, 9.29.1987, p. 29, from the statement of Chairman H. Adar; DFCSA, protocol of the Permanent Committee of the Public Council meeting, 3.8.1990, p. 39; P. Yaron, oral testimony, Kfar Saba, 2.5.2003. 85 YLA (above, footnote 84); ibid., protocol of the Public Council meeting, 12.29.1988, p. 43, from the words of Council Chairman H. Adar.

Chapter 2 The Spatial Frameworks Efforts to Concentrate the Graves of the Fallen in the Military Cemeteries and the Status of the Military Plots The Conflicting Objectives of the Establishment and the Families’ Desires: Plans for Concentrating the Graves of the Fallen and Their Failure Upon the establishment of the Division for Commemorating the Soldier and the inception of a process of gathering the fallen from their temporary burial sites for organized permanent burial, the division sought to concentrate the fallen in a limited number of military cemeteries. During that period, which preceded the establishment of the Public Council in 1951, the division engaged not only in implementation but also in policy making in conjunction with the Defense Ministry management. The current defense minister, David Ben-Gurion, tried to set the number of military cemeteries at three to four large central cemeteries,¹ but it quickly emerged that this was unrealistic. Therefore, in the course of 1949, it was decided to proclaim eight cemeteries as permanent regional military cemeteries: in Jerusalem (Mount Herzl), in Tel Aviv (Nahlat Yitzhak), in Haifa, in Kfar Warburg (for the Southern Region), in Netanya (the Sharon region), in Afula (the Jezreel Valley and the Jordan Valley), in Rosh Pina (the Upper Eastern Galilee) and Nahariya (the Upper Western Galilee). These places were selected for a number of reasons: First of all, many of the fallen were buried there from the very outset; secondly, we are dealing with places adjacent to the country’s borders and hospitals; and third, we are dealing with a convenient geographic distribution over the entire country that would allow the bereaved parents “to visit the graves of their sons more or less in the vicinity of their homes.”² Underlying the intention to centralize the graves of the fallen in a limited number of cemeteries was the desire to properly maintain all the graves at the various cemeteries over time, avoid discrimination in their handling while also preserving the uniformity of the graves, the tombstones and their surroundings not only within the cemetery but also among the cemeteries. These objectives could be more easily secured and at less expense by concentrating the gravesites.

1 AA , file 849/73/150 , Y. Dekel to the legal advisor of the Defense Ministry, 3.15.1954. 2 AA, file 580/56/375, Y. Dekel to S. Avigur, 12.13.1949 – the source of the citation. See also ibid., file 580/56/58, the Division for Commemorating the Soldier to A. Peri, 9.8.1949.

26 

 The Spatial Frameworks

Indeed in one of the Defense Ministry’s publications from 1949 it was emphasized that “the plan [of the division] is to concentrate the graves of all the heroes and martyrs from the war in a few military cemeteries and provide them with an appearance befitting the popular veneration towards their dwellers. A uniform style of tombstone would be decided upon for all the graves. At every cemetery a central memorial tomb would be established as well as a mass grave for unknown soldiers... once the cemeteries and the tombstones had been established the division would take pains to maintain them in perpetuity.”³

Fig. 5: Military cemetery in Rosh Pina (old plot). Source: Author’s photographs, February 2004.

Despite the division’s desire to concentrate the burial sites, it had already grasped that it would prove necessary to leave scores of small burial places from which the fallen would not be exhumed and transferred. We are dealing among other things with burial sites in communities where the local dead had been buried. It shortly emerged that many parents were demanding, and their demand was sustained 3 SIA, file C1590/5441, copy from the Journalists Yearbook for 1948-1949, edited by the public relations branch of the Defense Ministry – source of the citation. See also AA, file 580/56/374, the meeting of the judges’ committee for the declaration of the cemeteries, 3.7.1949; ibid., report on 3.15.1949 on the meeting that took place on 3.14.1949 regarding the judges’ committee for the competition on planning a military cemetery; ibid., file 1551/51/199, A. Golad to Colonel K. Kitt, August 1949.

The Conflicting Objectives of the Establishment 

 27

by Yad Labanim, to transfer their beloved for permanent interment at cemeteries adjacent to their parents’ residence as opposed to central military cemeteries.⁴ According to the Law of Military Cemeteries, 5710-1950 and even prior to that, it was determined that the permanent burial site would be determined by the families, whether in a military cemetery, a military plot within a civilian cemetery, an isolated military grave within a civilian cemetery or a civilian grave in every sense of the word.⁵

Fig. 6: Military cemetery in Haifa (old plot). Source: Author’s photographs, March 2002.

For this reason, there was an astounding growth within a few years in the number of burial sites outside the military cemeteries. The statistics reveal the following: At the end of 1949 the burial place of about 4,000 out of the total 4,537 slain registered in the division was known. The division had managed to concentrate more than 60% (2,517) of the dead in the permanent military cemeteries; the rest of the fallen (1,471) were buried in 136 civilian cemeteries, including 108 cemeteries 4 AA, file 1551/51/199 (above, footnote 3); ibid., file 580/56/58 (above, footnote 2); ibid., file 580/56/375 (above, footnote 2); RMA, protocol of the of the Public Committee’s meeting, 6.2.1953. See also AA, file 399/85/299, Y. Harel to M. Gur, 6.24.1974 from which it emerges that a similar tendency was manifested by the parents after the Yom Kippur war as well. 5 See paragraph 4 to the Law of Military Cemeteries, 5710-1950, Official Documents: The Statute Book, no. 55, 8.1.1950, p. 258.

28 

 The Spatial Frameworks

accommodating no more than 15 fallen soldiers per cemetery.⁶ In 1951 the number of burial sites totaled 155: The largest of them were the permanent military cemeteries denoted above, as well as the cemeteries in Kiryat Anavim, Rehovot, Petah Tikvah, Degania, Safed and Beer Tuviah.⁷ In August 1953 there were already 163 civilian cemeteries that housed military graves.⁸ Two months later the Division for Commemorating the Soldier reported on 175 cemeteries, of which nine were defined as military cemeteries (those previously mentioned plus the cemetery at Kiryat Shaul), seven cemeteries where 40 or more dead were buried (these were subsequently called military sections),⁹ and all the rest – 159 in number – were civilian cemeteries where there were less than 40 military dead per cemetery, including 128 cemeteries where there were less than 10 graves.¹⁰ Given the established facts, the division director, Yosef Dekel, noted with deep frustration that since the Military Cemeteries Law of 1950 allowed relatives of the fallen to determine the burial site of their beloved, it produced a situation that “whereas by concentrating the bodies and transferring them to military cemeteries we liquidated scores of burial sites of those slain, nonetheless new burial sites were created exceeding the number of those that we liquidated.” In comparison to the military cemeteries, in these places discrimination was perforce created given the diminished ability to care for the grave, uniformity suffered and the status of the military graves was impaired. In his own words: 1. Over the years the contours of a military grave have been determined and it is uniform for every burial place. The military grave was modest, low, and according to experts, creates an impression when it is sited amongst many graves of the exact same height. However when alongside it there are tall tombstones it becomes almost invisible. 2. A civilian cemetery in most cases is not maintained as it should be and the wild vegetation sometimes climbs higher than the grave rendering it nearly invisible. 3. There is almost no possibility to find contractors who are willing to go and build solitary graves located at a distance from the center, such as Majdal, Ashkelon, Beisan, etc. 4. Most of the civilian cemeteries have no roads 6 AA, file 580/56/375, Y. Dekel to S. Avigur regarding the report on the dead and missing. 7 These were later called military sections and subsequently became military cemeteries. See AA, file 220/70/213, the Division for Commemorating the Soldier to the Tourism Office, 5.29.1952; ibid., file 90/72/156, memorandum of Yad Labanim to the bereaved families for the month of Menahem-Av, 5713 (1953). See also CZA, file A116/166, detail of burial places in 1951 according to communities. 8 AA, file 849/73/150, Y. Dekel to the director general of the Defense Ministry, 8.26.1953, appending a list of cemeteries that were liquidated and a list of cemeteries that were added. See also ibid., file 849/73/150, a list of cemeteries by size, accurate to 1.1.1953. 9 See above, footnote 7. 10 AA, file 90/72/155, Y. Dekel to the director general of the Defense Ministry, enclosing a list of cemeteries where IDF war dead were buried and the number of people buried in each place, accurate to 10.27.1953.

The Conflicting Objectives of the Establishment 

 29

and we have to schedule work in these locations only during the summer months and even in these months there are places to which due to the sand there is no possibility of automobile access.

Dekel therefore proposed amending the law so that it would read “the closest relative to the deceased may determine the burial site of his beloved exclusively in one of the military cemeteries.”¹¹ Dekel reiterated his proposal-demand many times till he resigned from his post in 1955. In January 1953 he wrote the following to the Defense Ministry’s legal advisor: The additional justifications that I’ve voiced many times in your presence as well and it seems that they definitely justify amending the law are as follows: a. The nation in my opinion is interested in bestowing honor upon its heroes by the proper maintenance of the military cemeteries. This will be doable only if concentrated military cemeteries will exist in Israel. b. In order to help the Army carry out a respectable military burial special arrangements in the cemeteries are needed such as: entry access for cargo vehicles sometimes bearing howitzers, etc. This is something that can be arranged only in military cemeteries. c. With regards to burial expenses arranging the tombstone in the civilian cemeteries, this is generally impractical and in the event that it is feasible is usually prohibitively expensive. d. The gravesite and the tombstones are something forever. If we impose their maintenance on the relatives we are dealing with something transient and this won’t meet the target. e. Most of the civilian cemeteries are not properly maintained, there are places that are unfenced and it’s not respectable in general and definitely not for soldiers in particular. f. Cases have already arisen when after the bereaved parents decided that their beloved would be laid to rest in a civilian cemetery, they experienced maintenance deficiencies on the part of the institutions and after they have visited military cemeteries they approach us with the request to transfer their beloved to military cemeteries, and in certain cases we could not withstand the pressure and we honored their wishes despite the double expense involved in the matter.¹²

Dekel received partial backing for his request in the end result from the Yad Labanim executive who approached the bereaved parents “whose loved ones are buried in graves outside the military cemeteries, to petition the Defense Ministry to transfer these graves to the military cemeteries. The state cannot over time provide fitting treatment for isolated graves and as we have been made aware, already at this moment such graves are neglected in a few places. The honor of our sons mandates concentrating the graves in respectable military cemeteries 11 AA, file 849/73 /150, Y. Dekel to the legal advisor of the Defense Ministry, 6.2.1952 – the source of the citation; ibid., Y. Dekel to the legal advisor of the Defense Ministry, 1.13.1953. 12 Ibid., Y. Dekel to M. Necht, 1.26.1953 – the source of the citation; ibid., M. Necht to Y. Dekel, 2.5.1953; ibid., Y. Dekel to the director general of the Defense Ministry, 8.26.1953.

30 

 The Spatial Frameworks

where a unique state institution, the Division for Commemorating the Soldier, provides for them.”¹³ Indeed already at the beginning of the 1950s appreciable differences were revealed between the maintenance level in the central military cemeteries, whose handling was supervised by the Defense Ministry, and the maintenance level of military graves in the community cemeteries (military sections or isolated graves), that were entrusted to the care of the local municipal authorities and community committees: “The large and small military cemeteries under the care of the Defense Ministry have gardeners and special assistants who are meticulous about handling the plants and in general arrangements and this is not the case with cemeteries entrusted to local municipal authorities and members of the farming communities and under their responsibility.”¹⁴ With this in mind the Yad Labanim organization praised the agreement of the Defense Ministry to assume supervision over all the military sections in the civilian cemeteries where more than 20 dead were buried (day-to-day responsibility and the cost of maintenance remained in the hands of the local municipalities).¹⁵ Nevertheless, the organization hinted at differences in the maintenance level among the central military cemeteries themselves. At a gathering that took place one year later one of the bereaved parents expressed his disgruntlement over the difference between the maintenance level at the military cemetery at Mount Herzl and the maintenance level at the cemetery in Kfar Warburg and the discrimination that this denoted. This is what that particular parent had to say: “There are very painful matters and there are matters that with all our positive assessment we cannot refrain from severely criticizing. Those involved should not be angry with us for approaching them with our criticism and demands and we should not ignore what is eating away at our hearts: there are matters of discrimination and inequality, etc.... I was at Mount Herzl. Grandiose activity is being performed. But I could accept it with spiritual tranquility if I knew that in Kfar Warburg or in [the military section] of Beer Tuviah they were doing the right thing. And I can say... that things there are not all right. And if there exists a single place in this country where one mother can come and complain: Why is my son in such a situation, in such a disgraceful and horrible state? I don’t know if we’re doing the right thing. I don’t know if we have to accuse the Commemoration Office, but this atmosphere and this possi13 AA, file 90/72/156, Yad Labanim memorandum (above, footnote 7). 14 AA, file 702/60/1512, report of Y. Ben-Zvi, 11.29.1951, on a tour of the cemeteries made by members of the Public Council. 15 With regards to the Defense Ministry decision to assume supervision over the military sections where more than 20 dead were buried see also AA, file 90/72/156, letter of understanding between S. Peres and Y. Dekel, 12.23.1952; ibid., file 220/70/213, Y. Dekel to Y. Greenfeld, 12.30.1952.

The Conflicting Objectives of the Establishment 

 31

bility of discrimination should be indicted and we can’t let the matter pass in silence.”¹⁶ In any event, the problematic situation that was created because of the many burial places outside the central military cemeteries was brought up for discussion at the initiative of Dekel at a meeting of the Public Council in early June 1953. He demanded that the council restrict the freedom granted to the parents in determining the burial place and added: “There are places such as Beisan where there is no water at the cemetery and it’s almost impossible to reach them.” Some council members supported Dekel and emphasized for example: “I’m certain that one grave or two or even three at a distant place will be neglected and forgotten. The gravesite must be something educational.” Others on the council requested Dekel to submit a detailed report on the problem, and some feared that the parents would present a petition to the High Court if Dekel’s demands were agreed to. In this manner the topic was dropped from the agenda without a decision,¹⁷ but it again arose for discussion at the council in mid-December 1953. In anticipation of that deliberation Dekel had drawn up a proposal for a hard sell circular that would be sent to relatives of the fallen and contain ideological justifications for concentrating burial at central cemeteries, accompanied by an explicit threat. And this is what he wrote: The council feels obligated to inform the bereaved families that after a fundamental examination of the soldiers’ burial sites the council became convinced that the law for maintaining the military cemeteries in a respectable fashion cannot be implemented in isolated burial places. Only in the military cemeteries and in large sections in civilian cemeteries can the state and the institutions preserve and maintain the graves of the heroes. Similar possibilities do not exist for various important reasons that we cannot detail here, in isolated burial sites. These isolated burial sites are very numerous... Fully cognizant that this could cause anguish and sorrow to the bereaved families... whose beloved ones’ grave is near their homes, so they could visit it frequently and [unclear in original] their tears on the soil of a son and daughter, the council sees itself obligated by dint of inexorable necessity, [to approach] the bereaved families with a warm and vigorous summons to transfer the remains of their loved ones to one of the military cemeteries of their choice. Remember mothers and fathers! The sons and daughters that fell were during their lifetime brothers and sisters in arms in sacrifice, in heroism and blood. Just as they fought and fell together, so they need to spend their eternal peace together in the most honored places of the nation – the military cemeteries that are earmarked for them and exclusively for them. We’re convinced that this was also the wish of each and every one of them, not to be separated from his comrades in arms at his death when they were so beloved and becoming to each other during their lifetime. Mothers and fathers! We have no doubts that you would want the bones of your 16 SIA, file C 5436/71, protocol of the Yad Labanim gathering, 9.15.1954, from the words of Habib. See also ibid., statement by Hachter. 17 RMA, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 6.2.1953.

32 

 The Spatial Frameworks

beloved to be preserved by the State of Israel with all the honor that is due them. This is feasible only in the military cemeteries and it is unfeasible at other places. We likewise have no doubt that it is your desire that the spirit of bravery that stirred the hearts of your beloved should constitute legacy for future generations. Hebrew youth as it arrives to bestow honor upon the heroes who, as they fell established the State of Israel and restored human dignity to its people, should view the name of your beloved inscribed on the laudatory tombstone that the State of Israel will erect for him in a military cemetery. On the basis of the aforesaid the council approaches you with a summons to transfer the bones of your beloved. The council finds itself compelled to advise the Prime Minister and Defense Minister to promulgate a law: a: That would free the state from handling the graves of soldiers located at isolated places... b. That establishes the state’s right to determine the burial place of the deceased soldier. We should guarantee you, mothers and fathers, faithfully, that our approach to the Prime Minister and to you was done after considerable deliberation and a meticulous examination of our dearests’ graves wherever they may be.¹⁸

The members of the council, who had themselves warned about the neglect in the isolated and remote places,¹⁹ stuck to their position than one must only resort to persuading the relatives to transfer their beloved to the military cemeteries. They rejected Dekel’s proposal to initiate an amendment to the law that would allow parents to bury their sons only in military cemeteries, and the draft of the circular to the parents as formulated by Dekel was apparently never sent. In this fashion the council adopted a dual decision, both with regards to the status quo as well as with reference to the future: With regards to the status quo it was decided that the division should handle only those places where more than 10 deceased soldiers were buried; whereas with regards to places where less than 10 were buried it was determined that the division should announce that it was not handling them, and at the same time it would initiate discussions with relatives in order to sway them to transfer the fallen to military cemeteries.

18 Ibid., memorandum of the Public Council, 6.24.1953. 19 See also RMA, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 7.1.1953. See also AA, file 849/73/150, Y. Dekel to the legal advisor of the Defense Ministry, 3.15.1954, where Dekel wrote that there are many burial places where IDF war dead are also buried, these places are neglected, unfenced, without maintenance and without care; it frequently happens that upon the burial of a deceased soldier a new cemetery opens, because he is the first to be buried in this place of settlement. In any case, despite his earnest desire that “every military grave anywhere should receive proper maintenance,” the division will not have the ability to handle all these burial places where IDF war dead are buried. See also ibid., Y. Dekel to the director general of the Defense Ministry, 1.9.1954, where he writes: “Until this day our practice was that upon any notification that a grave was flawed, sunken, etc., we sent people to carry out the required repairs but we couldn’t always overcome this and I don’t think that we will ever prove able to overcome this because the matter is becoming increasingly difficult.”

The Conflicting Objectives of the Establishment 

 33

As for the future, it was decided to take measures that would encourage the relatives to bury their loved ones exclusively in military cemeteries. The defense minister would hopefully embrace the following decisions: First of all, they would double the number of cemeteries and fix them at 15-18 cemeteries. In this fashion the distance between the communities and the military cemeteries would contract appreciably, providing a solution to the parents’ request to bury the fallen in the vicinity of their homes. Secondly, in principle, the fallen were to be buried in a military cemetery, but the parents would be granted the right to bury their loved ones in any place they wished. However, in this case the Division for Commemorating the Soldier would only see to erecting the tombstone, whereas maintenance of the grave and its supervision would fall upon the relatives and it would be their responsibility.²⁰ During 1954 it emerged that it wasn’t so easy to implement the Public Council decisions regarding the future. First of all, it turned out that legal difficulties existed blocking the establishment of additional cemeteries.²¹ Secondly, it would prove impossible to implement the decision of the council regarding a fallen soldier whose relatives wanted to bury him in a civilian cemetery since, “it is impossible to inform the father of an IDF soldier that in the event that his son would heaven forbid die and they would bury him in a civilian cemetery the handling would not be equivalent to [burial in] a military cemetery.”²² Nonetheless, the Division for Commemorating the Soldier expressed its readiness to care for places outside the military cemeteries where 20 dead and or more were interred. The legal advisor to the Defense Ministry proposed transforming these sites over time into military cemeteries.²³ Dekel, however, was determined to prevent continued military burial in civilian cemeteries and not to allow the burial of lone soldiers in every location. Aside from the difficulties attendant in erecting military graves there, he could not countenance the discrimination against the military grave at these locations and forfeiting the distinctive characteristic of the grave and the uniform military tombstone in the civilian cemeteries, and he put it this way to the Defense Ministry legal advisor: “A military grave is constructed at a height of 30 cm above ground in a uniform fashion all over Israel while in the civilian cemeteries the practice is to establish tall tombstones. Due to the lack of maintenance of military graves in the civilian cemeteries the wild vegetation grows higher than the military grave 20 AA, file 849/73/150, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 12.15.1953; ibid., Y. Dekel to M. Necht, 1.12.1954; ibid., Y. Dekel to the legal advisor of the Defense Ministry, 3.15.1954. 21 Ibid., M. Necht to Y. Dekel, 2.28.1954. 22 Ibid., Y. Dekel to the legal advisor of the Defense Ministry, 3.15.1954. 23 Ibid., the legal advisor of the Defense Ministry to Y. Dekel, 4.3.1954.

34 

 The Spatial Frameworks

and renders it almost invisible. It does not honor the person killed and the dignity of the military tombstone and this occasions justified complaints by the bereaved parents concerning a lack of maintenance...”²⁴ It would seem that he was determined to secure a halt to the burial of lone soldiers in the civilian cemeteries, in order to preserve the distinctiveness and characteristics of the military cemeteries (and the military sections), the military grave and the military tombstone and everything associated with it. For that reason he made it clear that he would press for amending the legislation, as opposed to the position embraced by the Public Council proposing that when relatives of the dead soldier wanted to bury him in a civilian cemetery, the defense establishment would have to allow the family to establish a military tombstone or another tombstone and share the cost of erecting the tombstone, but it would be freed not only from the long-term maintenance of the grave, but also from the obligation to erect the tombstone by itself. The underlying assumption was that given such circumstances the prospects that the relatives would prefer to bury their loved ones in the military cemeteries would increase. Dekel received support for his position from the Defense Ministry legal advisor who made it clear that even within the framework of the existing law Dekel could obtain his objectives. “The principle is indeed that one should erect a military tombstone on every military grave, irrespective of whether it is situated in a military cemetery or whether it is located in a civilian cemetery. However the law permits a deviation from this principle regarding a grave in a civilian cemetery. There is no obligation that the tombstone on such a grave should actually be a military one; upon receipt of permission from any duly authorized officer [the head of the Division for Commemorating the Soldier] the relative of the soldier may establish another tombstone which is not a military one in the civilian cemetery... only a military tombstone will be erected at the state’s expense... the other tombstone will be established at the expense of the relative... and with regards to the technical implementation of erecting a military tombstone [in a civilian cemetery]... There is no obligation to establish it via the state’s executive apparatus; the state is obligated only to finance its establishment.”²⁵ 24 Ibid., Y. Dekel to the legal advisor of the Defense Ministry, 11.21.1954. See also above, footnote 22. 25 Ibid., the legal advisor of the Defense Ministry to Y. Dekel, 12.12.1954. See also ibid., the legal advisor to the Defense Ministry to Y. Dekel, 4.3.1954; ibid., file 90/72/157, memorandum from the meeting between Y. Dekel and the director general of the Defense Ministry, 8.19.1954. On the establishment of civilian tombstones for IDF war dead who were children of the kibbutzim in the military cemeteries of the kibbutzim see AA, file 849/73/150, Y. Dekel to the legal advisor of the Defense Ministry, 11.21.1954, where he writes that “in Yagur and in Givat Brenner they did not agree that we should install military tombstones and they erected tombstones according to

The Conflicting Objectives of the Establishment 

 35

Nevertheless no real changes were made in practice and the basic guidelines were not amended. The council and the Defense Ministry did not extend backing to the division in the spirit of the recent recommendations (or those that preceded them),²⁶ as proposed by Dekel and the legal advisor, and it was necessary to respect the wishes of the parents, and most definitely when the law mandated this. The efforts by the division to persuade the parents likewise proved of no avail.²⁷ In this manner, the number of burial places rose in 1956 to 192 of which only 10 were military cemeteries. We have already mentioned nine cemeteries above and it was decided to add a cemetery in Usafiya, where the dead of the Druze community were brought for burial.²⁸ As we have seen above, in a number of civilian cemeteries military sections were defined by the division (Degania A, Safed, Rehovot, Negba, Kiryat Anavim) and one essential criterion for proclaiming them as such was an appreciable concentration of military graves in a civilian cemetery. Nonetheless, the sections did not enjoy any legal standing by law.²⁹ Over time these sections turned into military cemeteries. The problem of the isolated military graves in the civilian cemeteries continued to trouble the division, the Public Council and Yad Labanim, but no action was taken to amend the law and prevent the relatives from resorting to this burial alternative. No clear definition was established for a military section in a civilian cemetery. Meanwhile, the parents continued to press vigorously to allow their children to be buried in the vicinity of their homes.³⁰ In 1959, Yitzhak Persich, a member of the council since its establishment, described the situation of the isolated graves in this manner: “We have visited all the burial places twice. The ideal conditions obtain where the graves are in the military cemeteries and no one of us is going to deny this. The military cemeteries are maintained very respectably... of course one cannot always ask the parents for consent to transfer their loved ones from their place of repose. However, as a result there are almost 230 graves that receive no attention. There is one large grave that is not taken care of and put in order. However it’s extremely doubtful that the government can accede to their accepted practice.” From here we can discern that the obligations of the kibbutz collective superseded the obligations of the national-military collective. 26 RMA, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 1.4.1955. 27 Ibid. 28 Government Yearbook, 1953-1954, p. 46; Government Yearbook, 1954-1955, p. 58; Shamir (2003), p. 61. 29 See above, footnote 28; AA, file 90/72/155, Y. Dekel to the director general of the Defense Ministry, 1.4.1954, appending a list of places where IDF war dead were buried, accurate to 10.27.1953. 30 RMA, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 1.8.1957; ibid., protocol of the Public Council meeting, 11.12.1957; ibid., protocol of the Public Council meeting, 1.16.1958.

36 

 The Spatial Frameworks

our demand to ensure that every isolated grave will be kept up. I say these things when I fully understand the problem in its details. I propose that the Yad Labanim Center approach all local municipalities regarding the graves.”³¹ The Division for Commemorating the Soldier pursued its activities to concentrate military burial, but without any real success. For example, during the 60s the council requested the transfer of 39 military graves from the War of Independence era resting in the military section of the civilian cemetery in Beer Tuviah to the nearby military cemeteries of Negba or Kfar Warburg: “The military graves are located smack in the middle of a civilian cemetery, there is a row of military dead next to a row of civilians.” The members of Beer Tuviah rejected this, and in 1968 they even demanded that the section be recognized as a military cemetery.³²

Discrimination against the Sections, and Plans to Alter Their Status to Cemeteries As opposed to the military cemeteries, accorded recognition and status by law and which were under the day-to-day care of the Division for Commemorating the Soldier, the military sections, as alluded to above, enjoyed no similar recognition or legal status (save for the fact that the bylaws authorized the Public Council to handle them as well as isolated military graves in civilian cemeteries). Likewise the minimum number of graves that a section had to contain to qualify as a “section” was unclear and undetermined. During the 70s the total was 15. In practice, the sections were inferior to the military cemeteries, and this occurred for a number of reasons: First of all, they lacked the major characteristics that typified the military cemetery, such as a parade ground, a wall for laying wreaths, etc.; secondly, the responsibility for handling them was entrusted to the local municipality rather than to the Division for Commemorating the Soldier; thirdly, there were no state ceremonies on Remembrance Day for the IDF fallen. This accounted for the sense of discrimination, and worse, that parents whose sons were buried in the sections perceived over time and motivated their petition to proclaim the sections military cemeteries. Indeed, in accordance with the budgetary possibilities of the Defense Ministry sections were from time to time proclaimed military cemeteries but without establishing clear criteria for deciding which section would be proclaimed a military cemetery and which would remain 31 Ibid., from the statement by Persich at the third national conference of Yad Labanim, Petah Tikvah, February 25-26, 1959, pp. 51-53. 32 Ibid., protocol of the Public Council meeting, 3.10.1969; AA, file 277/85/211, M. Shamgar to the head of the General Staff-Manpower Division, 3.5.1968.

Discrimination against the Sections 

 37

in the status of a section. Thus for example in 1968 the parents of the fallen buried in the military section in Beer Tuviah requested that the section be proclaimed a military cemetery. In their letter to the current defense minister, Moshe Dayan, they emphasized: It is customary in the IDF that the dead soldier and the tombstone that identifies him are both national and military property, and therefore the state sees to their proper maintenance, as befits the heroes of the nation who fell at their posts. These fallen heroes fought with valor and with meager weaponry during the War of Independence and fell while barring the path to the enemy with their bare hands and with their bodies. Their heroism is in no way inferior to that of other Israeli soldiers killed in action when there was a plane above their head and a tank by their side [apparently the reference is to those who fell in the Sinai Campaign and the Six-Day War and were buried in military cemeteries]. There are sections in other cemeteries throughout Israel where the IDF dead were buried, and they don’t always contain a larger number of dead than the Beer Tuviah cemetery, that were recognized and proclaimed as military cemeteries and have obtained the care and military and national honor that befits them. Therefore we can’t understand why our sanctified beloved buried here should be deprived in comparison with the other fallen who merit a military memorial ceremony, and why discrimination exists between two types of blood? And who’s going to visit and care for the graves after we are gone?³³

Following the Yom Kippur War the demands by the families and by Yad Labanim intensified on the ground of discriminations practiced against sections, to proclaim the sections military cemeteries.³⁴ At that time, the Division for Commemorating the Soldier defined a “military section” as a section totaling at least 15 military graves. In 1976 the number of sections totaled 70 as opposed to 18 cemeteries that had already been proclaimed at the time as military cemeteries.³⁵ An 33 DMA, folder 189, file 840, R. Tvila, T. Tamir and E. Melamed to M. Dayan, undated but it is clear that it is from the end of 1968. See also ibid., folder 4939, file 3, E. Rubinstein to H. Yisraeli, 12.9.1975; AA, file 399/85/229, A. Bartal to the head of the Army Manpower Division Office, 12.11.1975; DMA, folder 4939, file 3, Y. Frischman to S. Peres, 1.20.1976; ibid., letter to M. Tamir and others, 1.25.1976; ibid., H. Yisraeli to S. Seri, 3.21.1976, enclosing the letter of A. Yahel to Y. Frischman, 1.27.1976, and the letter of A. Yahel to H. Yisraeli, 3.14.1976; ibid., folder 7322, file 845, A. Gorni to Y. Sarid, 2.6.1976, including forms for selecting the burial sites; Aryeh Degani Private Archives, memorandum, background material for a discussion on the subject of “Military Cemeteries – Theory and Practice,” 2.15.1976; DMA, folder 4939, file 3, Y. Shahaf to H. Yisraeli, 3.21.1976; ibid., A. Gorni to Y. Frischman, 4.4.1976; ibid., folder 21495, file 445, protocol of the Public Council meeting with Defense Minister Y. Rabin in attendance, 10.1.1986, p. 3. 34 See for example the organ Discourse of the Bereaved (1975-1976), p. 12. 35 See details on 18 military cemeteries and 70 military sections in DMA, folder 4939, file 3, Y. Shahaf to H. Yisraeli, 8.18.1976, appended is a list of cemeteries and plots and sections. Isolated graves “to our distress exist in all the civilian cemeteries according to the following details: 11-15 military graves in about 25 communities, 6-10 graves in about 50 communities, 1-5 graves in about 200 communities.” About this see: ibid.

38 

 The Spatial Frameworks

increasing number of families felt themselves deceived when they became aware that “after they had given their signed consent to have their deceased interred in a military cemetery, it turned out that he was actually buried in a ‘military section,’” with all that this portended in terms of ceremonies and maintenance. Yad Labanim also would no longer agree that families, whose relatives were buried in the sections, should have to approach various parties – such as municipal authorities, contractors, etc. – regarding the day-to-day maintenance of the sections or of specific graves within them, and insisted that the Division for Commemorating the Soldier alone should serve as the designated address for the families. Indeed, the Defense Ministry found it difficult to ignore the complaints and searched for methods to transform the sections into military cemeteries. The chief obstacle was the budgetary problem, i.e., transferring the burden of maintenance and handling from the municipal authorities to the Defense Ministry. For that reason the ministry sought to find solutions with regard to ceremonies and was even willing to assume supervision over the maintenance of the sections, but demanded that the current arrangements where the local authority was responsible for the actual maintenance should continue. However, the Yad Labanim personnel would no longer agree to accept the Defense Ministry’s abdication of responsibility for maintenance and care of the sections and they dispatched sharp letters to both the Defense Ministry and the Public Council for Commemorating the Soldier protesting against the deprivation of the sections.³⁶ All this led to comprehensive discussions in the legal apparatus of the Defense Ministry in conjunction with the Public Council. The deliberations reached a conclusion on April 1976 as the council decisions were adopted unanimously and ratified by Defense Minister Shimon Peres. The drift of the decisions as we shall see below was to narrow the gap between the status and maintenance level of the sections and those prevailing at the military cemeteries, and in the process mea-

36 Ibid., folder 4939, file 3, E. Rubinstein to H. Yisraeli, 12.9.1975; AA, file 399/85/229, A. Bartal to the head of the Army Manpower Division office, 12.11.1975; DMA, folder 4939, file 3, Y. Frischman to S. Peres, 1.20.1976; ibid., letter to the legal advisor of the Rehabilitation Branch M. Tamir and others, 1.25.1976; ibid., H. Yisraeli to S. Seri, 3.21.1976, enclosed is a letter from A. Yahel to Y. Frischman, 1.27.1976 – the source of the citation – and the letter from A. Yahel to Y. Frischman, 3.14.1976; ibid., folder 7322, file 845, A. Gorni to Y. Sarid, 2.6.1976, including forms for choosing a burial place; Aryeh Degani Private Archives, memorandum, background material for a discussion on the subject of “Military Cemeteries – Theory and Practice,” 2.15.1976; DMA, folder 4939, file 3, Y. Shahaf to H. Yisraeli, 3.21.1976; ibid., Y. Shahaf to H. Yisraeli, 8.18.1976. Sorrow was expressed within the entire establishment at the time that military burial was rendered possible with such a large dispersion. Nobody was aware of the struggle put up by Y. Dekel during the 1950s – a struggle that proved unsuccessful.

Discrimination against the Sections 

 39

sures would gradually be taken to transform the sections into military cemeteries. These were the decisions: a. All sections in civilian cemeteries where a concentration of military graves exists will be considered military sections. All these will be marked, fenced in and landscaped by the Division for Commemorating the Soldier. The military sections will be proclaimed in the course of time as military cemeteries. The maintenance of the military sections will be performed by the authority responsible for the cemeteries and on whose territory they are located (a municipality or a burial society). The Division for Commemorating the Soldier will be involved in designing the section and will be in charge of supervising maintenance. Likewise the division will see to guide and counsel the responsible authority in the performance of its activities and will share in financing the maintenance as needed and in coordination with the responsible authority. b. The proclamation of military sections as military cemeteries will be done on a gradual basis given the fiscal and administrative burdens involved. It is proposed that the council should annually recommend criteria to be imposed on the number of military sections that will be proclaimed by you [the defense minister] as military cemeteries. c. With regards to the isolated military graves in civilian cemeteries, the Division for Commemorating the Soldier will supervise their maintenance which will be performed by the responsible authority on whose territory the graves are situated. The division will share in financing maintenance subject to the need and in coordination with the civilian authority. d. In the future it will be brought to the attention of the bereaved family in a clear fashion that if it should elect to bury the deceased in a civilian cemetery that does not contain a military section, or that the grave is not part of a concentration of military graves, as a consequence, the Defense Ministry will be involved purely in building the grave and setting the stone and will supervise the gravestone. e. The Division for Commemorating the Soldier will serve as a reference point for families in every matter involving questions of maintenance and design of military sections or isolated graves in civilian cemeteries. f. It is proposed to observe on the fourth day of Iyyar beginning with the year 5737 [1977], only two State ceremonies, one in Jerusalem and the second in Usafiya. In the other communities local ceremonies will take place with public figures in attendance. The Defense Ministry for its part will offer every community the participation of an IDF delegation at the ceremony – comprising an officer and two female soldiers. The Defense Ministry will assist in organizing the ceremonies by providing advice and material support to the municipal authorities that should so request it.³⁷

Following the defense minister’s authorization of these recommendations the executive bodies in the Defense Ministry found the necessary budget for transforming all the sections into military cemeteries over a period of five years.³⁸ In summer 1976 the first 12 sections that were to be proclaimed military cemeter-

37 SIA, file GL 21343/11, Y. Frischman to S. Peres, 4.26.1976; DMA, folder 7322, file 845, A. Gorni to the defense minister, 5.2.1976. 38 DMA, folder 7322, file 845, S. Peres to Y. Frischman, 5.11.1976; ibid., the director general of the Defense Ministry to the defense minister, 5.6.1976.

40 

 The Spatial Frameworks

ies were selected, including among others the sections in Kiryat Shmona, Petah Tikvah, Ofakim and Dimona.³⁹ In practice, things did not work out as such. The pace of transforming the sections into cemeteries was slow, and in 1985 the Public Council even adopted a decision supported by the defense minister not to announce at this stage the transformation of additional sections into military cemeteries. In 1987 a joint committee of the council, the Defense Ministry and the Army repeated that same decision.⁴⁰ The lack of clear criteria on transforming a section into a cemetery, and especially the absence of quantitative benchmarks and the criterion of distance from an existing military cemetery, all produced pressures on the council and the Defense Ministry. Thus for example during the mid-80s, the elders of the Druze community of Hurfeish wanted to proclaim the military section in their village as a cemetery and applied pressure on the council, the Defense Ministry and the minister of defense on this issue. The council refused to authorize this, because the cemetery totaled only 12 graves: “If we are to go by this yardstick where 12 graves in a regular section will become a military cemetery, we will as a result have to recognize another 40-50-60 cemeteries. In Kfar Saba for example there are 116. We advised the minister not to accept this. There may be other considerations, but these are not the considerations that guide us as a public council.” This statement hints at the political pressures that were applied on the minister regarding Hurfeish.⁴¹ The Druze did not desist and continued to pressure the council in subsequent years as well. During the early 90s their case again reached the council’s agenda. This time the council included people who felt that even if the section in Hurfeish had only 14 graves, one should proclaim the section a military cemetery to express gratitude and esteem to the community for its loyalty to the State of Israel. Those members also believed that for those very same reasons one should accede to a similar request from the Druze community of Beit Jann that only had 39 See above, note 35. 40 DMA, folder 6758, file 1073, Public Council chairman to Y. Rabin, 4.30.1985; ibid., Y. Rabin to H. Adar, 5.16.1985; AA, file 638/96/321, protocol of the Special Commission regarding the declaration of a military section in Hurfeish as a military cemetery, 2.17.1987. 41 DMA, folder 21495, file 445, protocol of the Public Council meeting with Defense Minister Y. Rabin attending, 10.1.1986, pp. 3-4, from the statement by Council Chairman H. Adar. See also ibid., p. 13. And see also ibid., folder 6634, file 587, protocol of the Public Council meeting with Defense Minister Y. Rabin attending, 9.24.1989. The council’s decision also dovetailed with the Army’s position that believed that the establishment of an additional Druze cemetery over and above the existing one in Usafiya could lead to a schism in the community. On this, see the protocol of the Special Commission (above, footnote 40), the words of the head of the casualties department.

Discrimination against the Sections 

 41

two graves but the families of 14 additional dead who had buried their beloved around their homes wished to transfer them to the section.⁴² At the end of the 90s the section in Hurfeish already totaled 23 graves, and the committee for establishing criteria for proclaiming military cemeteries that was appointed at that time by the Public Council decided to recommend transforming the section into a military cemetery. A similar recommendation was also given for Beit Jann. Together with these recommendations the council decided not to diminish “the centrality of Usafiya as the main cemetery of the Druze community.”⁴³ It seems that these are two self-contradictory decisions.

Fig. 7: Military cemetery in Hurfeish. Source: Author’s photographs, September 2002.

The decisions that were adopted in response to the Druze request represented a special gesture to the community. That same committee, the committee for setting criteria for proclaiming military cemeteries that was appointed in 1998 from among the council members, recommended five months later that for turning a 42 DFCSA, protocol of the Permanent Committee of the Public Council meeting, 11.24.1994, p. 33. 43 YLA, S. Hazon to Y. Gavish, 1.7.1999, regarding the conclusions and recommendations of the council committee for setting criteria on declaring military cemeteries on 1.7.1999 – the citation is from paragraph 9B. See also ibid., summary of a meeting on the occasion of the visit by the public committee for setting criteria for announcing military cemeteries, 12.28.1998; ibid., a summary of the Permanent Committee of the Public Council meeting, 2.11 1999; above, footnote 42.

42 

 The Spatial Frameworks

military section into a military cemetery the following conditions had to obtain: The number of dead exceeded 50, a request was received from the local authority, and the geographic distance from the nearest military cemetery was substantial. If the section served a number of municipalities as a regional cemetery, the transformation of the section into a cemetery would be authorized even if the previous conditions did not obtain. The recommendations regarding the two Druze communities were not intended to serve as a precedent.⁴⁴ In September 1999, the council established an additional committee, this time to set criteria for recognition as a military section. After seven months the committee set forth the following recommendations: In every community an area adjoining the civilian cemetery would be earmarked and set aside for the purpose of establishing a military section; the Defense Ministry would ensure state ownership over the area earmarked for the military sections or lease it; authorization for burial in the military sections was vested in the Division for Commemorating the Soldier; upon the burial of the first fallen soldier in the section it would be granted its military character including signs, the erection of a wall to house an eternal light, a place for laying wreaths and a flag post for raising the flag; maintenance and safekeeping would be the responsibility of the division, but Remembrance Day ceremonies would be the full responsibility of the local municipality (as opposed to military cemeteries, where responsibility fell upon the division).⁴⁵ In 2006, there were 43 military cemeteries and 91 military burial sections throughout Israel. Below is a list of locations in Israel with military cemeteries as of 2006: Ofakim; Eilat; Ashdod; Ashkelon; Beer Tuviah; Beersheba; Beit Jann (for the Druze fallen); Binyamina; Degania A; Dimona; Herzliya; Hadera; Holon; Hurfeish (for the Druze fallen); Haifa; Tiberias; Jerusalem – Mount of Olives; Jerusalem – Mt. Herzl; Kfar Warburg; Kfar Saba; Lod; Migdal Haemek; Negba; Nahariya; Nes Ziona; Upper Nazareth; Netanya; Pardes Hanna; Petah Tikvah; Usafiya (for the Druze fallen); Afula; Safed; Kiryat Gat; Kiryat Anavim; Kiryat Shmona; Rosh Pina; Rishon Lezion; Revivim; Rehovot; Ramla; Raanana; Tel Aviv – Nahlat Yitzhak; Tel Aviv – Kiryat Shaul. In some of these cemeteries there are sections intended for non-Jews. The most central of these are located at the cemeteries in Beersheba, Haifa and Afula.

44 Summary of a meeting on the occasion of the visit by the public committee (above, footnote 43); letter from S. Hazon (above, footnote 43). 45 DFCSA, the report of the committee and its recommendations for setting criteria for recognizing a military section, 4.4.2000.

Chapter 3 From a Military Cemetery to a Cemetery for the Security Forces Law and Reality in the Process of Expanding Eligibility for a Military Grave and Tombstone for Those Who Are Not Soldiers Eligibility for Burial According to the Law and the Original Pressures to Deviate from It In Paragraph 4 of the Law of Military Cemeteries, 5710-1950, it was specified that “a soldier who dies will be brought for burial in the military cemetery.” Paragraph 1 to the law defines a “soldier” as “a person in military service,” and “military service” is defined as following: “(a) service in the IDF; (b) regarding the period from 17 Kislev 5708 (November 30, 1947) till 29 Kislev 5709 (December 31, 1948), any other service that the defense minister has declared via an announcement in the official records as military service for the purpose of this law.”¹ It is important already at this stage to emphasize (and we will expand on this below) that in the Law of Military Cemeteries, 5710-1950, no clause exists stipulating that a civilian cannot be buried in a military cemetery, although in internal Defense Ministry correspondence from summer 1949 there was talk that “one should make an effort to ensure that in a permanent military section or military cemetery only soldiers shall be buried.”² Because it had set November 29, 1947, as the earliest possible date for conferring eligibility under certain conditions for military burial, the defense establishment received already in the early 50s quite a few complaints from families of those who had died prior to this date in security and defense incidents.³ The matter of Jewish Brigade fighters who fell in the service of the British Army during the Second World War and had been interred in various places in the European diaspora surfaced on the agenda already at the end of 1948. The relatives wanted to transfer their bodies for military burial at military cemeteries in Israel. Their demand was not rejected,

1 Official Documents: The Statute Book, no. 55, 8.1.1950, p. 258, paragraph 1. 2 AA, file 580/56/58, conclusions adopted after the consultations between Y. Amir and Y. Dekel, 8.14.1949, paragraph 5. See also ibid., file 88/60/62, protocol of the general meeting of the bereaved parents, 1.10.1950, where it was noted that some parents requested that burial places should be left for them adjacent to the graves of their children at the Nahlat Yitzhak Cemetery. 3 AA, file 580/56/59, Y. Dekel to S. Avigur, 10.4.1949; ibid., file 90/72/39, M. Ariav to P. Lavon, 5.30.1954.

44 

 From a Military Cemetery to a Cemetery for the Security Forces

but the senior echelons of the Defense Ministry, including Ben-Gurion, believed that the time was not yet ripe for dealing with this. The matter was also impossible given opposition by Great Britain, opposition that remains in force to this very day.⁴ At the beginning of the 50s the day-to-day reality stirred up various issues that the Legislature had ignored at the time of legislation. One issue, for example, dealt with deserters and missing who had died during the period of their absence. The army’s stance opposed bringing them to military burial. But an amendment to the law was required that stipulated this explicitly or that amended the definition of a soldier in a manner that any person who had deserted or gone missing was not included in the definition of a “soldier.”⁵ In the mid-50s, the Army also sought to include in the list of those eligible for military burial at the military cemetery civilians who fit the following criteria: 1. An IDF invalid who died as a result of this impairment; 2. A trainee of the paramilitary youth corps who died during his service in the youth corps; 3. A career IDF retiree who died; 4. A reservist who died while he was not on military service if the head of the Manpower Branch in the General Staff so ruled. It is obvious that compliance with the Army’s request necessitated amendments to the law.⁶ The current legal advisor of the Defense Ministry who was asked to render an opinion on the Army’s request was not enthusiastic, to say the least, about including in the law these categories of fallen. He particularly opposed the inclusion of the latter two categories, first of all, because death in these cases was not tied to military service; secondly, the last category “is very broad and the exercise of authority as suggested above can lead to complaints of discrimination and preference for this person over another...” and even to demands to include in the list of all eligible for military burial and a military tombstone “veterans of the Haganah organization, policemen who had died in the service and as a result of their service etc.” In any case, the legal advisor warned, acceptance of the Army’s demands would lead to “a blurring of the military character of the cemetery.”⁷ 4 AA, file 580/56/374, Y. Yisraeli to Dr. Lubinski, 10.11.1948; ibid., file 580/56/375, B. Rosenthal to S. Avigur, 11.6.1949, appending a letter from Dr. Friend to the Defense Ministry where he expresses an interest in the possibility of reburial in Israel for his son who fell in the service of the British Army and died in Sicily; ibid., S. Avigur to B. Rosenthal, 11.8.1949; DMA, folder 6634, file 587, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 9.24.1989 with Defense Minister Y. Rabin participating, p. 23, where Rabin noted that “on a number of occasions there was talk of transferring the remains of the Jewish Brigade soldiers and we adopted a negative response. They say – otherwise a global transfer of remains from all the wars and all the years will begin.” 5 DMA, file 849/73/150, N. Keene to the head of the Chief of Staff’s office, 6.27.1954; ibid., S. Gazit to the director of the defense minister’s office, 5.21.1954. 6 Ibid., M. Necht to the defense minister, 5.18.1955. 7 Ibid.

Eligibility for Burial According to the Law 

 45

However, the Army, that was subjected to the pressures of these populations, did not waive its demand to expand the list of those eligible and asked the Defense Ministry to take action to amend the law in a manner that Paragraph 4a to the civil law would be added stating that “the Minister of Defense is entitled to instruct (or announce) the applicability of this law’s directives to additional categories of people who had died while not engaged in military service.”⁸ In practice already in the early 50s, with the assent of the upper echelons of the Defense Ministry, the Army intended to deal with Army invalids, who died as a result of their impairment, as military casualties in all respects, including their interment in a military cemetery. This is what the head of the Manpower Branch explained to the head of the Division for Commemorating the Soldier: “I discussed this matter with the director general of the Defense Ministry and we agreed that since the ‘Law Regarding Families of Soldiers Who Died in Battle, 1950’ does not discriminate between a soldier who died at the time of service as a result of service and a discharged soldier who died as a result of service after he had been released from the Army, there is no point in discriminating regarding the commemoration of these two additional categories. Our opinion is that one should commemorate Army invalids whose death came as a result of their army service in the same manner as commemorating soldiers who died in the course of their military service and as a result of their military service.”⁹ The senior echelons of the Defense Ministry, as opposed to the position of the legal advisor to the ministry and without raising the matter before the Public Council for Commemorating the Soldier that operated by force of Paragraph 12 to the Military Cemeteries Law, expressed their partial agreement with the Army’s position and authorized in an administrative directive already during the first half of the 50s a military burial and a military tombstone for Youth Corps members who fell in the line of duty. Subsequently it applied the directive also to cadets at the military boarding school alongside the Reali High School in Haifa, the armory corps school and the one adjacent to the Air Force Technical School who were wounded during the course of their studies. Furthermore, in 1954, by force of an administrative directive, “it was finalized between Mr. Keren from the Israel Police and current Defense Minister Pinhas Lavon that slain policemen who were killed in the course and in the wake of their line of duties in the police would be brought for burial in separate plots at military cemeteries. It was decided to allocate three 8 Ibid. And see also ibid., file 849/73/150, M. Necht to the director of the Division for Commemorating the Soldier, 6.25.1954, appending the letter of S. Gazit to the director of the defense minister’s office on June 1954. 9 AA, file 90/72/156, Y. Amir to the director of the Division for Commemorating the Soldier, 8.4.1953.

46 

 From a Military Cemetery to a Cemetery for the Security Forces

separate sections in the military cemetery on Mount Herzl in Jerusalem, in Kiryat Shaul and in Haifa.”¹⁰ Let it be emphasized that while we are dealing with separate sections, “however these separate sections are part of the general area that was proclaimed by the defense minister to be a military cemetery.”¹¹

Fig. 8: Tombstone of a Youth Corps member in the military cemetery in Haifa. Source: Author’s photographs, March 2002.

The police demand to include the fallen from its ranks as well in the list of those eligible for military burial originally surfaced in summer 1952, after the head of a border patrol company was killed in action against infiltrators. His remains were transferred for burial in a civilian cemetery, but his relatives insisted that “his body should be transferred to a military cemetery since he fell in action against 10 DMA, folder 4711, file 2, N. Dagoni to M. Necht, 4.21.1964, surveying the “facts regarding burial in military cemeteries of those who are not ‘soldiers’ as designated by law.” See also AA, file 192/27/13, H. Einav to the Army Manpower Division and the Military Judge Advocate General, 6.14.1968, from which it emerges that at least up to 1968 the principle of burying in special sections in the military cemeteries only policemen who fell in the line of duty was strictly observed. Up to that year nine policemen were interred on Mount Herzl, in Haifa ten policemen were buried and in Kiryat Shaul six policemen. 11 AA, file 192/77/13, M. Shamgar to the defense minister’s assistant, 6.4.1968. In this fashion Shamgar attempted to argue that in terms of deviating from the law, there was no significance to the fact that police personnel were buried in separate sections.

Eligibility for Burial According to the Law 

 47

the enemy.” The current police superintendent, Yehezkel Sahar, approached the director general of the Defense Ministry with the request to authorize the burial of policemen in the military cemetery under such circumstances,¹² however the head of the Division for Commemorating the Soldier, Yosef Dekel, issued a totally negative response: “The law regarding a soldier’s burial stipulates that only a person on military service is considered a soldier; military service meaning that he has taken the oath as stipulated by law and he was assigned an IDF soldier serial number. To the best of my knowledge police service is not included in the law of military service. It is possible that one should set aside a cemetery for policemen but I do not believe that the option of also including the policemen exists as long as the law does not stipulate that police service is military service.”¹³ The director general of the Defense Ministry expressed a similar opinion and summed up in his letter to Sahar that “it doesn’t appear to me that an option exists to incorporate police as long as the law does not stipulate that police service is military service.”¹⁴

Fig. 9: Tombstone of a cadet in the military cemetery in Haifa. Source: Author’s photographs, March 2002.

12 AA, file 220/70/210, H. Sarid to Y. Dekel, 8.25.1952 regarding policemen who fell in actions against the enemy, appending the letter of Y. Sahar to Z. Schind, 8.19.1952. 13 AA, file 220/70/210, Z. Schind to Y. Sahar, 9.14.1952. 14 Ibid.

48 

 From a Military Cemetery to a Cemetery for the Security Forces

Sahar did not relent. Since there were repeated cases that policemen fell and since the families of the fallen policemen bitterly protested the fact that their relatives were not accorded military burial as were soldiers who had been sent on similar missions, he turned at the beginning of 1954 to the director general of the Defense Ministry and asked him “to reconsider granting the police force the option of bringing those who fell in action against the enemy for burial at the military cemetery on Mount Herzl.” Sahar further added that the “the police are prepared to bear all the expenses involved. If you have reasons why they should not be buried as soldiers a solution can be provided by allocating a special corner for policemen.”¹⁵ Indeed in this manner the issue of burial for policemen was solved. The defense minister gave his assent to allocating sections in the military cemeteries for the burial of policemen who fell in the line of duty, on condition that the police would defray their part of the costs. From a numerical standpoint this marked the first significant deviation from the law, but from the standpoint of the spirit of the law policemen who fell in the line of duty came closest to the definition of a “soldier.”¹⁶

Fig. 10: Policeman’s tombstone in the military cemetery in Holon. Source: Author’s photographs, March 2002.

15 AA, file 849/73/150, letter from the police commissioner, 2.26.1954. See also ibid., Y. Nahmias to the police commissioner, 5.2.1954. 16 Ibid., Y. Dekel to the deputy commissioner of the Israeli Police, 7.25.1954; ibid., Y. Nahmias to Y. Dekel, 7.18.1954.

The Expansion of Eligibility 

 49

The agreement with the police was not discussed at all in the Public Council for Commemorating the Soldier. It seems that the upper echelons of the Defense Ministry and the Army, already subjected to pressures, allowed themselves to adopt the practice that they embraced by utilizing a small loophole in the law, as the law does not include “an explicit prohibition to bury someone who was not a soldier at a military cemetery,” even though “from the spirit that inspires the law and the name accorded it (military cemeteries) one can arrive at the intention of the Legislature.”¹⁷ It would appear that the defense minister in 1956 relied on this thin crack when he permitted the father of the soldier Zvi Druyan, who died immediately upon receiving the announcement of his son’s death in action, to be buried on Mt. Herzl. Given the tragic case, the family requested that the father be buried alongside his son.¹⁸ It is possible that given this precedent as well, there were in the first half of the 60s similar requests by parents to be buried next to their children after they had died. Apprehension was voiced in the Division for Commemorating the Soldier that the High Court of Justice would assent to these requests because the law did not explicitly prohibit civilian burial in military cemeteries. Therefore the director of the Division for Commemorating the Soldier requested that the director general of the ministry take action to legally close off this loophole.¹⁹

The Expansion of Eligibility during the 60s via the Order of the General Staff while Refraining from Amending the Law The loophole that the Military Cemeteries Law had left intact permitted the formulation during the 60s of a General Staff order 33.0902 that permitted three additional groups of civilians to be buried in the military cemetery: a major general (reserve), a lieutenant general (reserve) and a reserve soldier who did not die during reserve service provided that the head of the Manpower Branch had so instructed.²⁰ The Association of Retired Career Soldiers in the IDF asked the chief of staff in 1965 to add career soldier retirees who had passed away to the list of eligible groups. The preface of the association’s petition to the chief of staff contains some 17 DMA, folder 4711, file 2, the official in charge of the Division for Commemorating the Soldier to M. Necht, 4.21.1964, appendices included. 18 Ibid. 19 DMA, folder 4711, file 2, N. Dagoni to the director general of the Defense Ministry, 6.4.1965. 20 AA, file 638/26/321, a proposal for transferring general staff orders from chapter to chapter, 5.10.1965.

50 

 From a Military Cemetery to a Cemetery for the Security Forces

fascinating things that attest to the combination of pressures that were involved in this issue: “In any case involving the death of one of our members there is a haphazard scamper by his admirers, and friends from the particular army service to which the deceased belonged, together with relatives and friends with regards to everything pertaining to the funeral service.”²¹ This approach prompted the chief of staff to ask the current defense minister, Levi Eshkol, to establish a public committee to examine the request and also to examine the list of those eligible for military burial according to the aforementioned general staff order.²² In early 1968 the committee reached the conclusion that only major generals and lieutenant generals would be eligible for military burial even if they did not die in the framework of military service. This conclusion was based on the practice in England and other European countries regarding those eligible for burial in military cemeteries although they were not soldiers, and was adopted by the defense minister.²³ Pursuantly the general staff order was amended.²⁴ Apparently the decision regarding major generals and lieutenant generals was adjusted at that time to provide for retired inspectors and chief inspectors of the Israeli police.²⁵ At the same time feverish discussions began between the lawyers in the military establishment and the Defense Ministry over the question of whether it was appropriate to seek an amendment to the Law of Military Cemeteries in line with the conclusion of the public committee. The matter became more complex after the question of burial in a military plot for a General Security Service member who was killed by a hand grenade hurled at him in Gaza arose at the same time,²⁶ and after a similar petition had been made a couple of years earlier on behalf of a Mossad member had been rejected by the Defense Ministry. Assenting to the General Security Service request, warned the current legal advisor to the defense establishment, Meir Shamgar, anticipating the future, could encourage demands by “additional groups of people who were out of uniform regarding their right to 21 AA, file 192/77/13, Y. Nitzan, undated, regarding the military funeral. 22 DMA, folder 1614, file 1301, L. Eshkol to D. Hacohen, Y. Hazan, E. Rimalt and S. Eyyal, November 1966; ibid., the decision on the appointment of the committee, 7.1.1966; ibid., R. Efrat to the military secretary of the prime minister, 3.8.1965; ibid., S. Yanai to Lt. General Y. Rabin, 4.28.1965; ibid., R. Efrat to the military secretary of the prime minister, 5.10.1965; ibid., S. Yanai to Y. Rabin, 4.28.1965; AA, file 192/77/13, correspondence of the committee for setting the norms for funeral ceremonies for officers in the rank of general and upwards. 23 AA, file 192/77/13 (above, footnote 22). 24 DMA, file L57085, general staff order 38.0116, setting the funeral and military burial in a military cemetery; above, footnote 20. 25 AA, file 2849/97/251, Y. Shahaf to P. Zusman, 7.6.1977. 26 Ibid., file 192/77/13, S. Gat to the head of the Army Manpower Division, 5.30.1968; ibid., file 277/85/211, memorandum “Funerals in a Military Ceremony and Burial in a Military Cemetery,” January 1973.

The Expansion of Eligibility 

 51

be buried in a military cemetery who would raise demands identical to those put forward by the General Security Service: a. Mossad members, b. civilians who worked for the Army and were killed at the time of service and due to service, c. members of the weapons system development authority or Israel Military Industries killed in the line of service, d. members of civil defense, volunteers, emergency services workers, or members of the civil defense auxiliary organizations wounded in the performance of their duties... there can be no doubt that one case will serve as a precedent for similar cases.”²⁷ In the end result the defense minister determined that the General Security Service member would be buried in a police section with a civilian funeral to be conducted by the military rabbinate.²⁸ From reading the copious legal correspondence that followed the defense minister’s adoption of the Public Commission’s conclusions and after the issue of the General Security Service casualty arose, we get the impression that those occupying legal positions clearly knew for a fact that the Legislature intended military burial exclusively for soldiers. However, this reality raised the following difficulties: Over the years a de facto deviation from the law had occurred allowing those whom the law had not intended to be buried in military cemeteries as well, and one had to make this legal; the decision by the Public Commission was a further deviation, and that too had to be legalized; save from the issue of major generals and lieutenant generals, the army sought to preserve the law as the Legislature had intended. At the same time it was possible that the defense establishment in the future would seek to incorporate additional categories of fallen into the law, and the question arose how would it be possible to prevent other groups who were not included among the eligible from pressing demands, while simultaneously defending the decision on ethical grounds or against a petition to the High Court of Justice.²⁹

27 Ibid., file 192/77/13, M. Shamgar to the defense minister’s aide, 6.4.1968. 28 Ibid., the memorandum in file 277/85/211 (above, footnote 26). 29 Ibid., file 192/77/13, M. Shamgar to the head of the Army Manpower Division-Individual, 6.6.1968; ibid., S. Eyyal to the head of the Chief of Staff’s office, 6.7.1968; ibid., the legal advisor to the defense establishment to the defense minister’s assistant, 6.10.1968; ibid., file 277/85/211, D. Kos to the legal advisor of the defense establishment, 1.18.1968; ibid., A. Wurm to the head of the Advisory and Legislation Branch, 1.16.1968; ibid., B. Greenberg to the head of the Advisory and Legislation Branch, 1.23.1968; ibid., D. Kos to the head of the Army Manpower Division, 2.6.1968; ibid., M. Shamgar to the head of the Army Manpower Division, 3.5.1968; ibid., D. Kos to the legal advisor to the Defense Ministry, 3.5.1968; ibid., H. Einav to the head of the Army Manpower Division, 6.4.1968; DMA, folder 4711, file 2, M. Shamgar to the defense minister’s assistant, 6.10.1968; ibid., D. Kos to B. Greenberg, 3.5.1968; ibid., M. Shamgar to the defense minister’s assistant, 6.4.1968; ibid., A. Ben-Yosef to the legal advisor to the defense establishment, 7.2.1968.

52 

 From a Military Cemetery to a Cemetery for the Security Forces

This is how the matter rested for the moment, and as we shall see below, it would resurface on the agenda for many years as a result of the decision adopted in summer 1968 by the aide to the defense minister, Haim Yisraeli, and the chief of staff to avoid amending the law regarding the burial of people who were not soldiers.³⁰ This decision was adopted due to the problems involved in amending the law in this form or the next. On the other hand if one abstained from amending the law, this would facilitate the implementation of the Public Council’s decision regarding the burial of major generals and lieutenant generals by force of administrative directives, precisely as had been done previously regarding policemen and other deviant cases, as in this manner additional exceptions would be allowed via an administrative directive, such as the case of General Security Service men and Mossad members.³¹ And what would be done regarding the intention of the Legislature and the spirit of the law? Here again (perhaps due to a lack of choice) the thin crack in the law that we have already observed was exploited, and the recommendation of the deputy legal advisor to the defense establishment (that Shamgar apparently disputed) was adopted that read as follows: “It has not been determined in the law [of military cemeteries] that only a soldier will be brought for burial in the military cemetery. Hence no legal impediment exists that would bar burial in military cemeteries to other categories in addition to soldiers. Indeed by force of an administrative directive policemen who had died during or due to their service, youth corps members and cadets who had died under similar circumstances and other categories were brought for burial in military cemeteries… it therefore appears to me that the matter of bringing any officer holding the rank of major general and above who was no longer on active service for burial can be arranged via an administrative directive.”³²

Exploiting the Loopholes in the Law during the Early 70s The issue of expanding the eligibility list for military burial did not drop from the agenda even after it was decided in summer 1968 that if a need for expansion arose, the matter would be effected via the loophole that the law had left in place. The issue was again discussed particularly at the close of the 60s and the beginning of the 70s with regards to three categories of the fallen: citizens who worked for the security forces at the Suez Canal and had fallen during the War of Attrition; General Security Service and Mossad members; and IDF invalids who 30 Letter from A. Ben-Yosef (above, footnote 29). 31 AA, file 192/77/13, M. Shamgar to the defense minister’s assistant, 6.4.1968. 32 Ibid.

Exploiting the Loopholes in the Law during the Early 70s 

 53

died as a result of their impairment. Regarding the first category a very simple solution was devised: Those citizens who had worked at the Suez Canal for the defense establishment were drafted retroactively after they had fallen, and the period of their work at the Canal was considered active reserve duty. With reference to General Security Service and Mossad members, it is not clear if the matter arose as a result of a general fundamental demand or in the wake of a specific fatality. Nonetheless it is clear that in the early 70s the defense establishment displayed greater accessibility to the burial of such persons in the military cemeteries, and the question now became what were the legal avenues for accomplishing this. One suggested option was to exploit the loophole in the law. But aside from the fact that “the burial of a citizen in a military cemetery is not anchored in the law,” in other words there was a limit to the legal and public ability to use the loophole that the law had left intact, apprehension was voiced that “such a determination would necessarily create additional pressures from other state bodies regarding a person on a national mission who fell in the line of duty, such as a member of the Foreign Ministry or an ambassador who was killed by hostile forces, or a national delegation such as athletes or Jewish Agency members involved in immigration to Israel, etc.” The other option that was raised was to make the General Security Service or Mossad member a soldier after he had fallen, similar to the precedent of citizens who had fallen at the Suez Canal during the period of the War of Attrition.³³ 33 See the memorandum “Funerals in a Military Ceremony” (above, footnote 26). And see for example AA, file 277/85/211, a press clipping from 8.13.1971 regarding the deaths of three girls in summer 1971; these girls stepped on a mine near Ramat Magshimim on the eve of their induction into the IDF while performing unpaid volunteer service. From here we can infer the potential for pressures in connection with military burial. Only a year and a half after the Public Council for Commemorating the Soldier and the defense minister decided on the burial of invalids in military cemeteries, the Public Council decided to rescind this decision and return to the normal procedure under which the invalids were buried in civilian cemeteries. The initiative for the renewed discussion came from the Organization of IDF Invalids, that did not view the decision by the council from the beginning of 1973 that allowed the military burial for any IDF invalid with favor since the organization wanted to award special status only to invalids who were hurt as a result of operational activity or as a result of training accidents or operational accidents. “The invalid organization wants to address only purely operational activity; either operational or reserve…” In contradistinction, “if a person was recognized as an invalid as a result of an illness during his time of service, was discharged and after a few years died of old age, despite the fact that he died of the very same disease, he shall not be brought for burial in a military cemetery.” Therefore the organization approached the defense minister with a request to qualify the sweeping decision by the council, and the minister sought the council’s recommendation. On this see DMA, folder 7322, file 842, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 11.17.1974, p. 3. Council members, although expressing astonishment over the fact that it was the organization itself that was requesting the imposition of limits to the previous decision, gave their support. Given contemporary events

54 

 From a Military Cemetery to a Cemetery for the Security Forces

Fig. 11: Tombstone of a General Security Service member in the military cemetery in Beer Sheva. Source: Author’s photographs, September 2002. the argument was raised for the first time that one should limit the categories of invalids due to apprehension that a demand would be raised to bury in military cemeteries those wounded in terrorist actions. In discussions, where representatives of the Army and the Invalids Organization participated, it was proposed that an Army invalid would be brought for military burial only if he died within a limited period following his being wounded, or that his degree of disability shall constitute a yardstick for determining the eligibility of the invalid for military burial. However, these proposals were “rejected after it emerged that each of them left an opening for possible arguments by the deceased’s relatives,” in other words pressures that the system would find it difficult to contend with. At the end of the discussions the council in January 1975 adopted a sweeping decision regarding the invalids that ran counter to the one that was adopted in 1973. In other words, it was decided to cancel the previous decision and return to the norm that preceded it, to the effect that Army invalids who had died were brought for burial in a civilian ceremony at a civilian cemetery. In explaining the decision to Defense Minister Shimon Peres, the current council chairman, Y. Frischman, wrote: “This recommendation was guided also by projections that were submitted to it [to the Public Council] that in the next few years the number of invalids who quite naturally would pass on would constantly increase, and in most cases it would be difficult to ascertain within the brief time the link or absence of a link between the disability and the death.” The defense minister adopted the recommendation. On this see AA, file 399/85/299, Y. Frischman to S. Peres, 1.16.1975. Nevertheless the rule was set that soldiers who were hurt during their service, and were discharged or fired from security service while being hospitalized and had died at the time of their hospitalization, would be eligible for military burial provided the hospitalization was consecutive from the time they were wounded. In this manner the status of those wounded who died as a result of their wounds was not impaired. On this see AA, file 399/85/299, Z. Kaspi to the legal advisor of the defense establishment, 7.6.1975.

Exploiting the Loopholes in the Law during the Early 70s 

 55

In the end result the opinion of the legal advisor to the defense establishment, Yosef Ciechanower, was adopted and he proposed using the loophole that the law had left intact, both with regards to General Security Service members and Mossad members who had fallen in the line of duty as well as for IDF invalids who died after their discharge due to the injury that they had sustained during their military service and as a result of it.³⁴ The legal advisor to the defense establishment decided therefore to make further use of the loophole in the Law of Military Cemeteries: “It is a right of a soldier to be buried in a military cemetery but it appears to me that from this right and obligation it does not follow that a military cemetery must be devoted exclusively to soldiers.”³⁵ For that reason the advisor decided to rely upon this interpretation of the law rather than attempt to amend the law in a manner that would allow the defense minister to permit the burial in a military cemetery of those who were not soldiers. The advisor turned down the contrary position of Dr. Zvi Hadar, then the chief advocate general. Hadar was not happy with the use of the legal loophole although he did not dispute the option of exploiting it; he even argued that the matter contradicted the Public Health Ordinance of 1940 that determined that one must bury the deceased (save for soldiers) solely in a civilian cemetery. Since invalids, General Security Service members and Mossad members were citizens, one could not bury them in the military cemetery. Therefore he proposed amending the Law of Military Cemeteries in such a manner that the interment of these citizens would not contradict the Public Health Ordinance. In the end result the government attorney general backed Ciechanower’s legal opinion. In summer 1973 the eligibility of invalids was therefore confirmed and General Security Service members and Mossad members were added to the list of those eligible for military burial on condition that they fell in the line of duty.³⁶ 34 AA, file 277/85/211, H. Rothstein to the Military Advocate General Command, 6.27.1973; ibid., Z. Inbar to the head of the Army Manpower Division, July 1973; ibid., Z. Kleinman to the legal advisor of the defense establishment, 8.17.1973; DMA, folder 7322, file 842, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 3.11.1973; ibid., protocol of the Public Council meeting, 11.17.1974; ibid., the Public Council’s decisions, 1.12.1975; ibid., decisions of the Permanent Committee meeting, 3.11.1975; ibid., Y. Frischman to S. Peres, 1.16.1975; ibid., S. Peres to Y. Frischman, 1.24.1975. 35 AA, file 399/85/229, Y. Ciechanower to H. Rothstein, 4.25.1973. 36 AA, file 277/85/229, Z. Hadar to the head of the Army Manpower Division, 4.12.1973; ibid., file 277/85/211, H. Rothstein to the Military Advocate General, 4.5.1973; letter from Y. Ciechanower (above, footnote 35); ibid., file 399/85/229, Z. Hadar to the legal advisor to the Defense Ministry, 5.9.1973; ibid., file 277/85/211, Y. Ciechanower to Z. Hadar, 5.13.1973, appending a memorandum on the burial of former soldiers; ibid., Z. Hadar to the defense establishment’s legal advisor, 5.18.1973; ibid., H. Rothstein to the Advocate General command, 6.27.1973; ibid., Z. Inbar to the head of the Army Manpower Division, July 1973; ibid., Z. Kleinman to the head of the Army Manpower Division, 8.17.1973; ibid., file 399/85/229, Y. Ciechanower to the Military Advocate General, 8.23.1973.

56 

 From a Military Cemetery to a Cemetery for the Security Forces

Fig. 12: Tombstone of a Mossad person in Kiryat Shaul Military Cemetery. Source: Author’s photographs, July 2006.

Pressures from Interested Parties during the Late 70s As mentioned, in 1954 an arrangement was worked out with the police so that policemen who fell in the line of duty were eligible for burial in military cemeteries. When major generals and the lieutenant generals in the reserves were included in the list of exceptional cases, the inclusiveness was also adjusted for retired inspectors and chief inspectors. However, the police did not suffice with this and demanded that eligibility be expanded in a manner that would produce total parity to the army in every respect, so that even policemen who died of natural causes could be buried in a military cemetery. The head of the Division for Commemorating the Soldier at the time, Yitzhak Shahaf, recommended to the director general of the Defense Ministry to turn down the request with the explanation that “expanding the single ‘loophole’ for burying all the deceased from the police would tarnish the character and purpose of the military cemeteries and we therefore recommend leaving the status quo in place in order to cleave

Pressures from Interested Parties during the Late 70s 

 57

to the purpose that has been prescribed for us.”³⁷ Nevertheless, due to pressures from the police in autumn 1977, “the Minister of Defense [Ezer Weizman] decided that members of the Israeli police who had died in their course of service for any reason whatsoever would be buried in the police sections at the military cemeteries.”³⁸ Since 1977 the status of policemen has been equalized to those of soldiers. In four cemeteries they are buried in police sections, while at the other cemeteries there is no distinction between a soldier and a policeman.³⁹

Fig. 13: Tombstone of a prison service person in Kiryat Shaul Military Cemetery. Source: Author’s photographs, March 2002.

The prison guards also did not desist from applying pressure. The government decision regarding the general equalization of the prison guards’ status to that of policemen in everything connected with salary conditions, rights, etc., had 37 AA, file 2849/97/251, Y. Shahaf to the director general of the Defense Ministry, 7.6.1977. 38 AA, file 2849/97/251, A. Fink to the head of the Manpower Division at the National Police Headquarters, 9.2.1977 – the source of the citation; ibid., Y. Shahaf to the head of the Rehabilitation Branch, 11.13.1979; ibid., A. Fink to the director general of the Defense Ministry, 11.20.1979; ibid., Y. Shahaf to H. Kotzer, 3.1.1978; ibid., Y. Shahaf to H. Kotzer, 12.29.1978; SIA, file GL 21767/15, H. Bar-Lev to Y. Rabin, 1.8.1987. Let us note that even previously the law regarding border patrol policemen was identical to the law governing soldiers in every respect. On this see AA, file 2849/97/251, Y. Shahaf to A. Kaplan, 1.22.1978. 39 DFCSA, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 7.25.2001, p. 24.

58 

 From a Military Cemetery to a Cemetery for the Security Forces

existed for some time,⁴⁰ and by 1977 their status was equalized to that of the policemen with regards to military burial, i.e., those serving in the prison service who fell in the line of duty had the option of burial in military cemeteries. The general comparison of policemen to soldiers regarding military burial adopted at the close of 1977 led the prison service to demand equalizing the status of prison service personnel (about 3,000 people) to that of the policemen with respect to the burial of someone who died outside the line of duty as well.⁴¹ However, the senior echelons of the Defense Ministry opposed this and concluded at the end of 1979 that “the present arrangement will continue and the deceased from the prison service who fell in the line of duty will be brought for burial in the police sections of the military cemeteries.”⁴²

The Road towards Covering the Deviant Cases by Law during the mid-70s Given the defense establishment’s renewed examination of various topics following the Yom Kippur War, the current legal advisor of the establishment, Uriel Gorni, wanted to regulate the prevailing practice regarding exceptional cases eligible for burial in military cemeteries, after it became clear to him that the practice was covered neither by primary legislation (and according to the consistent position of the military advocate it even contravened the law),⁴³ nor by ordinances or military orders. The list of exceptional cases that the advisor wanted to regulate demonstrates that we are dealing with the very same exceptional cases categories that we have already mentioned: General Security Service and Mossad workers who fell in the line of duty, policemen, youth corps and cadets, reserve officers or retired officers with the ranks of major general or lieutenant general, chief inspectors and inspectors, soldiers wounded during their time of service, who were discharged or fired from the security forces while they were hospitalized and had died during their hospitalization on condition that they had been hospitalized continuously since the time they were wounded, underground fighters who fell abroad prior to

40 AA, file 2849/97/251, Y. Meiri to Y. Shahaf, 1.17.1979. 41 Ibid.; letter from H. Bar-Lev (above, footnote 38); AA, file 2849/97/251, Y. Shahaf to the head of the Rehabilitation Branch, 2.6.1979; ibid., Y. Shahaf to the head of the Rehabilitation Branch, 11.13.1979; Ibid., A. Fink to the director general of the Defense Ministry, 11.20.1979. 42 Ibid., Y. Shahaf to the head of the Manpower Branch of the National Prison Service, 12.1.1979. 43 AA, file 399/85/229, A. Gorni to Z. Kaspi, 6.13.1975; ibid., Z. Kaspi to the Army Manpower Branch – head of the Division for Wounded Soldiers, 6.29.1975.

The Road towards Covering the Deviant Cases by Law during the mid-70s 

 59

the establishment of the state and citizens who were formerly soldiers and about whom the defense minister had made a special decision (there were a few isolated cases in this category; details about them in the source material are not sufficiently clear). As opposed to his predecessor Ciechanower, Gorni did not reject the idea of amending the law in a manner that the exceptional cases would be recognized in the legal codex.⁴⁴ However, after a series of discussions and correspondence that took place with the manpower department and the military advocacy it was agreed in 1975 that the Defense Ministry “would refrain from initiatives towards amending the law, and a list of exceptional cases would be put in writing as a binding norm that had been acceptable hitherto and under which civilians were brought for burial in military cemeteries,”⁴⁵ and in the future as well it would be possible to observe this practice. What was the reason for the decision not to initiate an amendment to the law? A survey of the sources does not provide a clear answer to this. It is possible that once again they decided that it was preferable to preserve a loophole in the law for the benefit of future exceptional cases that would arise. This was particularly true since the legislative process could provoke too many questions by the public about the exceptions, questions that could provoke the elimination from the list of groups whose eligibility had been hitherto authorized. In any event, in October 1976 under the heading “religion” in the Compendium of Permanent Instructions for Army Manpower Installations, a paragraph regarding “burial of civilians in military cemeteries” was published where these exceptions were detailed.⁴⁶ This marked the start of an attempt to institutionalize the issue of exceptional cases, but the defense establishment again refrained – as it had done for over 25 years – from providing a legal disposition to the matter, and continued to rely on the flimsy loophole in the law from a legal and public standpoint alike. 44 AA, file 399/85/229, the following letters: Z. Kaspi to the Army Manpower Division – head of the Division for Wounded Soldiers, 6.29.1975; Z. Kaspi to the legal advisor to the defense establishment, August 1975; A. Gorni to Z. Kaspi, 6.13.1975; M. Aluf to the Advocate General, 7.14.1975; Z. Kaspi to the legal advisor to the defense establishment, 7.6.1975; M. Eisental to the Advocate General Command – head of the Advisory and Legislation Branch, 7.1.1975; A. Gorni to Z. Inbar, 6.24.1975; Z. Inbar to the legal advisor to the defense establishment, 5.27.1975; M. Eisental to the Advocate General – head of the Advisory and Legislation Branch; ibid., file 638/96/321, E. Rubinstein to Z. Inbar, 9.9.1975; ibid., A. Pesenzon to Army Manpower Division – head of the Division for Wounded Soldiers, October 1975. 45 Letter from E. Rubinstein (above, footnote 44). 46 AA, file 399/85/229, compendium of permanent directives for Army Manpower Division installations, 10.25.1976; ibid., M. Eisental to the Military Advocate General – head of the Advisory and Legislation Branch, 9.25.1975, enclosed is a proposal for amending the general staff order 38.0116; ibid., Z. Kaspi to Army Manpower Division – head of the Division for Wounded Soldiers, 11.13.1975.

60 

 From a Military Cemetery to a Cemetery for the Security Forces

The Proposal by the Defense Establishment to Amend the Law at the Close of the 70s In 1978 the defense establishment began taking vigorous measures to amend the law and adjust it to the existing reality. What prompted this? The question becomes more acute especially in view of the fact that two years previously the defense establishment had decided to refrain from amending the law. It would appear that the answers can be provided by a number of factors that coincide in that period. First of all, already during the 60s the Israeli public voiced demands that reached the Knesset to bring those who had fought and died for the establishment of the State of Israel even prior to November 29, 1947, for military burial such as those who perished while blowing up the A-Ziv Bridge. The response by the Defense Ministry at that time was laconic: “According to the Law of Military Cemeteries the Defense Ministry handles the graves of IDF casualties who fell beginning with November 29, 1947. The Defense Ministry does not handle the graves of Haganah dead or those of other underground organizations prior to the establishment of the state.” Despite this, in 1978 the current prime minister, Menachem Begin, ordered them to bury Yosef Lischansky (a NILI member [an anti-Ottoman underground organization that operated in Palestine during the First World War on behalf of the British]) in Rishon Lezion and erect a military tombstone (including the IDF symbol) on his grave. The Defense Ministry argued that the tombstone had been erected erroneously, but Lischansky’s family insisted that we were not dealing with an error but with a directive from the prime minister.⁴⁷ One should assume that with the Likud’s coming to power in 1977 it pushed to expand the eligibility list for military burial plan and a military tombstone so that it would include those who had fallen prior to November 29, 1947, and this would make the fallen of the IZL (Irgun Zvai Leumi – National Military Organization) and Lehi (Lohamei Herut Israel – Freedom Fighters of Israel), including those who had been executed by the British, eligible. All this could not be affected without a legal arrangement, and this provided an opportunity for a general disposition of the issue of exceptional cases. Secondly, within the Defense Ministry, awareness had ripened regarding the need to amend the Law of Military Cemeteries, 1950, on other matters as well and these amendments were calculated “to adjust the existing law that primarily and for the most parts had been legislated decades ago (1950) to needs and situations that had surfaced and taken shape over time...”⁴⁸ Thus for example following 47 Knesset Protocols, 11.28.1979, pp. 682-684. 48 AA, file 2849/97/251, memorandum proposal – A Proposal to Amend the Military Cemeteries Law (amendment), 1978-1979.

The Proposal by the Defense Establishment to Amend the Law at the Close of the 70s 

 61

the High Court of Justice decision in the Ben Zeev case in 1975 (see below), it became necessary to incorporate in the law the issue of uniform tombstones and the authority of the Public Council on this matter. Another matter that mandated amending the law was connected to changes that parents sought to introduce in order to equalize their rights to the right of the widow in determining the burial location. It turned out that an action to amend the law regarding all matters that needed correction in one shot would be far more sensible than an action to amend the law on each and every separate issue. Thirdly, one could assume that the legal department of the defense establishment (the Defense Ministry and the Army alike) was but one of the bodies that arrived at the conclusion that after such an excessive number of exceptions, the mind would not tolerate further disregard for the intention of the Legislature and the spirit of the law. What was therefore needed was an amendment that would “anchor the existing situation by legal certification.”⁴⁹ This is how the head of the Manpower Branch explained it: “We were in favor of institutionalizing the matter via explicit ordinances and laws.”⁵⁰ One way or another, since the initial half of 1978, deliberations began on drafts of various proposals for amending the law regarding exceptional cases. One of the earliest drafts sought to amend the definition of “soldier” from “a person in military service” – as appeared in Paragraph 1 in the original law – to “a person on military service or one whose burial in a military grave was sanctioned by the defense minister or somebody authorized to do so.”⁵¹ Another draft, this time in 1979, already defined a “soldier” eligible for military burial as “a person sanctioned by the defense minister or person authorized to do so for burial with a military ceremony and in a military grave, as will be determined in the ordinances or by special dispensation.” The draft of the ordinances detailed categories of citizens that we have previously witnessed: major general and lieutenant general, General Security Service and Mossad members who died in the line of duty, ROTC during their studies, underground fighters who fell abroad prior to the establishment of the State of Israel, policemen, invalids under conditions detailed above, youth corps members who fell in the line of duty, holders of the award for valor, citizens who were previously soldiers and the defense minister, or someone authorized to do so by him, decided to make a special dispensation in their cases.⁵² 49 Ibid., memorandum by Y. Telraz to the head of the Advisory and Legislation Branch, 4.7.1978. 50 Ibid., Y. Berger to the head of the Division for Wounded Soldiers, 10.8.1978. 51 See above, footnote 49. 52 See above, footnote 48; DMA, folder 4939, file 3, draft proposal to military cemetery ordinances, 1979.

62 

 From a Military Cemetery to a Cemetery for the Security Forces

In November 1979, the preparation of a memorandum for a draft amendment to the Military Cemeteries Law was completed and it comprised three parts: first, regarding the uniformity of tombstones as a result of the High Court decision in the Ben Zeev case (on this see in detail below); second, regarding the rights of parents, equalizing them to the widow, in determining the military cemetery where the casualty would be interred; third, regarding the group of exceptional citizens entitled to be buried in a military cemetery. The text resembled the text of the 1979 draft that we detailed above,⁵³ however one significant change was introduced: Into the body of the law (but not in the ordinances) a specific paragraph was added regarding an exceptional case, namely a “person who fell in Israel or abroad on behalf of the establishment of the State of Israel [i.e., the undergrounds] and the defense minister authorized bringing him for military burial.”⁵⁴ Noting this exceptional case in the body of the proposal (rather than in the ordinances as in the other exceptional cases) and mentioning not only those who fell for the establishment of Israel abroad as had been the practice and as noted in all the draft memoranda hitherto, but also those who fell in Israel – were undoubtedly connected to the political turnabout of 1977 and the intention of the Likud elites to regulate in this fashion the military burial of IZL and FFI men who fell prior to November 29, 1947.⁵⁵ These matters ran counter to the opinion of those in the Public Council and the Division for Commemorating the Soldier, who requested in the previous drafts to limit the list of the underground fallen eligible for military burial to include only those who fell abroad, and rely upon the current practice and the 1975 legal opinion formulated by the then deputy Defense Ministry legal advisor, Elyakim Rubinstein. Furthermore, the director of the Division for Commemorating the Soldier wrote: “It seems to me that one should consider whether such an inclusion would be making a statement about demands that would arise for transferring bodies from civilian cemeteries to military cemeteries with regards to all the underground fighters.”⁵⁶ Presently, in April 1979, the deputy legal advisor 53 DMA, ibid., memorandum proposal – a legislative draft the Law of Military Cemeteries (amendment), 1979, disseminated by the legal advisor to the defense establishment on 11.4.1979 and by D. Shefi, the deputy legal advisor to the defense establishment, on 4.25.1979. 54 Ibid. 55 And see DMA, folder 1571, file 761, M. Kashti to Y. Amir, 7.14.1968; ibid., Y. Amir to the director general of the Defense Ministry, 7.16.1968; ibid., S. Yerushalmi to Y. Amir, 9.2.1968. See the aforementioned correspondence regarding the demands by Knesset Member M. Begin in July 1968 “to establish tombstones on the Mount of Olives for the underground fighters,” a demand that was accepted, to Y. Amir’s displeasure. 56 DMA, folder 4939, file 3, Y. Shahaf to D. Shefi, 2.5.1979 – the source of the quotation. See also a draft of the ordinances 1979 (above, footnote 52).

The Proposal by the Defense Establishment to Amend the Law at the Close of the 70s 

 63

to the defense establishment, Dov Shefi, had no qualms about approaching the personal assistant to the defense minister, Haim Yisraeli, in the following language: “The Division for Commemorating the Soldier is relying on the legal opinions of attorney E. Rubinstein claiming that only underground fighters who fell abroad were entitled to burial in military cemeteries... this opinion by attorney Rubinstein was rendered in September 1975, namely prior to May 1977, and my question is whether ‘it is business as usual’ or whether a change has occurred in Israel on this matter as well.”⁵⁷ These words are self explanatory. In any event, in December 1979 a memorandum containing the government’s draft legislation was circulated, without amending the restrictive text of dying “abroad,” for the perusal of the Ministerial Commission on Legislation. Half a year previously, after a military tombstone was erected on the grave of Yosef Lischansky at the initiative of Prime Minister Begin, Knesset Member Emry Ron from the opposition Alignment Party tabled a private member’s bill that defined military service in a matter that erased the restrictive definition of “soldier” as a person who had served from November 30, 1947 onwards and in this manner the discrimination against those who had fallen on behalf of the state’s establishment from the time of the First Aliyah (1882-1904) would be abolished. In Ron’s estimation we were dealing with a total of 2,300 people who fell to establish the state from the time of the BILU (1882) immigration and till November 29, 1947, including 830 people who fell while performing a mission for the Jewish community in Palestine during the two world wars and 1,462 people who were killed between the Balfour Declaration and November 29, 1947.⁵⁸ In presenting the legislative proposal that he had formulated before the Knesset at the close of 1979, Ron explained: “Isn’t it time that we honored all those who fell on the road to the state’s sovereignty and independence with the proper state honor? Why should we discriminate between this blood and the next? Does not the indisputable right to commemorate a soldier who fought and died in Israel’s battles remain valid, irrespective of if he fell during the 20s or the 40s or if he fell in October 1947 rather than in December of that very same year? Why should the handling of the burial and remains of those who have fallen ‘on the road to the state’ be performed by a religious burial society and the tombstones be kept up or neglected by the various organizations?... it may appear to many that this matter of state maintenance, of a suitable [tablet] is of negligible importance. This is not how families see it or people who are close to this painful 57 DMA, folder 4939, file 3, D. Shefi to H. Yisraeli, 4.5.1977. 58 Ibid., protocol no. 31 of the Subcommittee for Legislation of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee meeting, 12.1.1980; AA, file 2849/97/249, explanatory material for the proposal of Knesset Member E. Ron for amending paragraph 1 to the Law of Military Cemeteries, 1979.

64 

 From a Military Cemetery to a Cemetery for the Security Forces

subject.”⁵⁹ Ron, who feared that the Likud would concern itself with those who had fallen for the independence of the State of Israel only if they shared its ideology, added in a discussion held in the subcommittee of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee: “The question has been raised in the Knesset three times: once after the remains of the 14 who fell in the Gesher A-Ziv action were found,⁶⁰ the second case was in connection with Bracha Fuld,⁶¹ and the third time was a public discussion on the subject of Lischansky. I claim that to avoid any claims of ostensive discrimination in this direction or another and since all those who fell on the road to a state are precious to us and merit commemoration by every possible standard, one must take pains to commemorate them in an acceptable fashion as was done with regards to IDF soldiers, and in this manner no family will feel a sense of inferiority, this is an honor that the Jewish people accords to those who have fallen.”⁶² In January 1980 the Ministerial Committee on Legislation discussed the memorandum of the proposed government legislation.⁶³ The results of its deliberations including inter alia the demand that the defense minister alone should not expand the circle of eligibility for military burial and a military tombstone but had to receive the authorization of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, simplified the amendment to the law in the following manner: “military service” was defined as service in the IDF, and regarding the period that had preceded the establishment of the IDF – “every other service that the defense minister has declared, with the authorization of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee and a declaration published in the official records for the purpose of this law.” Likewise a subparagraph 1.a was added to the primary legislation enti59 Knesset Protocols (above, footnote 47). 60 The 14 who fell at Gesher A-Ziv fell in the Night of the Bridges in June 1946, when they attempted to attach explosives to the bridge. The corpses of 13 of the fallen were found totally crushed, and the few remains that were found were transported for burial in a common grave in Haifa. Subsequently, in 1969, the remains were transferred for burial at a site near the bridge. 61 Bracha Fuld was a Palmach member killed by the British at the end of March 1946 when she participated with her comrades in an attempt to block the outskirts of Tel Aviv to the British who sought to reach the coast and prevent the arrival of the illegal immigrants onboard the vessel Wingate. Bracha Fuld was brought for burial at the Nahlat Yitzhak Cemetery. In July 1966 Knesset Member S. Aloni demanded that the Division for Commemorating the Soldier take care of Fuld’s grave that she claimed was neglected and covered with thorns and thistles. On this see DMA, folder 2881, file 742, written question by Knesset Member S. Aloni addressed to Defense Minister L. Eshkol, 7.19.1966. 62 Protocol of the subcommittee meeting (above, footnote 58), p. 3. 63 SIA, file A2002, vol. 1, 13208, protocol of the discussion in the Ministerial Committee for Legislation on 1.8.1980, on the memorandum of a draft legislative proposal to the Law of Military Cemeteries (amendment), 5740-1979.

The Legislative Proposal 

 65

tled “The Prerogative to Expand the Law’s Applicability,” stipulating that “The defense minister is entitled to determine in the ordinances with the authorization of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, that the directives of this law, all or some of them, will apply with the appropriate changes to persons who had died when they were not soldiers, if they had worked for the security of the State of Israel or if at the time of their demise they served in a military framework.”⁶⁴ In March 1980 the ministerial committee approved the proposed legislation,⁶⁵ and the government did so as well in April of that year. In May 1980 the proposal was tabled in the Knesset.⁶⁶ In June, the Knesset plenum dealt with the proposal and decided to refer it to the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee to prepare it for the second and third readings.⁶⁷

The Legislative Proposal is Severely Criticized by the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, 1980 The subcommittee for legislation of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee took the legislative proposal at its word, in other words, as a law that foresaw future developments – and expanded the frameworks of the military cemetery – rather than as a law that primarily provided retroactive legitimation for the past. Therefore the committee posed some probing questions to the defense establishment’s legal advisors, questions that should be viewed as criticism over things that had been committed in the past: “Aren’t we pushing the envelope [by the very fact that the defense minister, with the authorization of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, is permitted to establish military burial in the ordinances for categories of persons who were not soldiers]?” asked Zerah Warhaftig, the committee chairman, who added: “We understand that there are a number of categories with a link to the Army, but don’t open the gates so wide. Once you admit such a category, the pressure will start and you won’t be able to withstand it. Today you will issue ordinances about generals, tomorrow the colonels will organize. So if you introduce a limitation where you mention a person 64 Ibid., M. Nir to M. Berman, 5.13.1980, appending the legislative proposal Law of Military Cemeteries (amendment 2), 5740-1980, after it was ratified by the Ministerial Committee for Legislation on 3.25.1980. See also ibid., E. Weizman to A. Lischansky, 3.12.1980, enclosed is the text of the aforementioned draft legislative proposal drawn up in the spirit of the Ministerial Committee for Legislation’s recommendation on 1.8.1980. 65 DMA, folder 4939, file 3, A. Lischansky to the defense minister, 3.26.1980. 66 Ibid. 67 Knesset Protocols, 6.17.1980, pp. 3413-3415.

66 

 From a Military Cemetery to a Cemetery for the Security Forces

who was wounded and died subsequently – if this matter is security related, then this applies to him at the time of his death, this is acceptable. But don’t expand things beyond this. Today the cemeteries are sufficiently regulated and there is sufficient respect for the matter, we are a people of reserve soldiers [in this manner he perhaps hinted that following the logic of the defense establishment, as expressed in the proposed legislation, a majority of the nation was eligible for military burial] so why do you have to expand this matter... if you open up the gates in this manner you are inviting pressures...” Knesset Member Yossi Sarid added: “The opening is very wide, and I cannot support this. It is not encouraging that the matter will come to the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee for ratification [that will function as a brake against expanding exceptional cases], because I know how matters come before the committee; they can come to the committee on the basis of specific matters, and then we will definitely not be able to oppose it. We will then by happenstance have an expansive ordinance regarding people to whom we don’t think that this principle should apply. If these are the examples, I can provide another 10 examples. For example in Israel there are quite a large number of people who received military medals. Why should their status be inferior to that of the generals?... I recommend including all groups that we deem suitable in the law, and as for groups that do not appear suitable I don’t want to authorize somebody to establish ordinances. Therefore I propose that we should draw up a list concerning whom this should apply to.” Amnon Rubinstein, a third Knesset member present at the session, explained that “On the basis of principle the Legislature had to be more specific and should not leave this too wide open... if you cut down on the categories there will be less pressures.”⁶⁸ Therefore the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee charged the Defense Ministry and the Justice Ministry with modifying the law – and not merely by cosmetic modifications but substantial and fundamental modifications. However, the current Defense Minister Menachem Begin refused to amend the legislative proposal.⁶⁹ The government eventually changed, and Defense Minister Yitzhak Rabin requested the Knesset not to apply consecutiveness to the legal proposal and therefore the legislative process lapsed.⁷⁰ Criticism from another direction was voiced in 1982 by the State Comptroller. He did not hesitate to warn about the current situation where people are buried in military cemeteries on the basis of “internal agreements that took place in the 68 DMA, folder 4939, file 3, protocol no. 31 of the Subcommittee for Legislation of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee meeting, 12.1.1980. 69 AA, File 1163/90/121, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 7.29.1984, p. 10, from the statement by N. Pearlman. 70 YLA, N. Rashba to N. Pearlman, 1.15.1985.

The Army and the Public Council for Commemorating the Soldier 

 67

Defense Ministry.” Many who are not included in the provisions of the law that award eligibility to military burial exclusively to soldiers on active service have become eligible. He demanded that at the very least the criteria deciding de facto eligibility for burial in military cemeteries should be anchored in the directives of the Rehabilitation Branch.⁷¹

The Army and the Public Council for Commemorating the Soldier Are Aroused to Fill the Breach during the 80s As may be recalled, the pressures of the police led in 1977 to an agreement by the current Defense Minister Ezer Weizman to generally equalize the status of policemen to the status of soldiers in a manner that a policeman who had died for any reason would be eligible for burial in the military cemetery.⁷² This was not the case with prison officers. The Defense Ministry agreed to bury in military cemeteries only prison wardens who fell in the line of duty. This provided an opening for a lobbying campaign by the prison service to secure a general equalization of the status of prison wardens to the status of policemen. The Defense Ministry now turned for the first time to the Public Council for Commemorating the Soldier in order to receive an opinion regarding the issue of the prison wardens in particular and the issue of the exceptional cases in general.⁷³ In May 1984, Prison Service Commissioner Mordecai Wertheimer detailed his arguments for a general equalization between the prison wardens and the policemen before the Permanent Committee of the council. His main contentions dealt with the government’s equalization of the status and service conditions between prison wardens and policemen and the fact that the work of the prison wardens is a security function in every respect, especially as many of the prisoners were security prisoners.⁷⁴ However, the Permanent Committee refused to agree to the prison wardens’ demands, and moreover expressed its indignation over the very inclusion of civilian exceptions to the list of those eligible for burial in military cemeteries over the years as a result of the assent to such pressures or others, while the law itself dealt exclusively with military personnel. Its position was opposed to that of the Defense Ministry and those legal advisors of the system who had allowed 71 The State Comptroller (1982), p. 420. 72 YLA, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 9.29.1987, pp. 7-11, from the statement by Chairman of the Council H. Adar. 73 Ibid., p. 8. 74 See in detail YLA, protocol of the Permanent Committee of the Council meeting, 5.3.1984 with Prison Commissioner M. Wertheimer in attendance.

68 

 From a Military Cemetery to a Cemetery for the Security Forces

the inclusion of the exceptional cases via the loophole that the law left open. The committee’s anger was primarily vented at the Police Department that worked to include policemen who did not die in the line of duty in the list of eligibles. In retrospect, and given the precedents, the committee was prepared to consider the possibility that those who belong to the security forces worked for the state’s security and had fallen in the line of duty should indeed be buried in military cemeteries, but not beyond this. For that reason it also believed that one should consider stopping the burial of major generals and lieutenant generals in the reserves in military cemeteries, and most definitely retired inspectors and chief inspectors. Nevertheless, the committee found it difficult to provide an answer to the question-provocation of the prison commissioner who asked why, based on the criteria of the committee, a career soldier who died of an illness was eligible for military burial, and why therefore should this principle not apply to policemen and prison wardens. One way or another, for the first time the Permanent Committee of the council took a decision to remove the eligibility to burial in military cemeteries for policemen who did not die in the line of duty. It was natural that the police were alerted to avert the evil decree, but the intervention of Minister of Police Bar-Lev with Defense Minister Rabin, both on the matter of policemen and the matter of prison wardens, and the appearance of the police minister before the council on this matter, did not succeed in changing the decision of the council regarding the policemen.⁷⁵ 75 Ibid. and see YLA, M. Wertheimer to the chairman of the Public Council, 5.15.1984; YLA, the head of the Department of Welfare and Pensions at National Police Headquarters to N. Schayek, 5.15.1984; SIA, file GL 21767/15, H. Bar-Lev to Y. Rabin, 1.8.1987, with regard to attempts by the police to persuade the council to alter its decisions, where Bar-Lev writes: “While we expect that the problem of the national prison service personnel will be resolved within the framework of an amendment to the law, it emerged to our surprise that not only has the council rejected the national prison service request, but even recommended canceling an existing arrangement that has been ongoing for many years regarding police and prison service personnel with the result that the eligibility of prison service personnel will be totally abrogated whereas for police personnel eligibility will be restricted and extended only to those who died in the framework of security activity (aside from inductees in the border patrol who are considered IDF soldiers).” See also AA, file 1163/90/121, handwritten letter to the office of the head of Army Manpower Division, 2.16.1987; ibid., file 638/96/321, B. Avrahami to the head of the Army Manpower Division, 3.1.1987; DMA, folder 50721, file 3, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 6.30.1987, with Police Minister H. Bar-Lev in attendance; AA, file 638/96/321, N. Schayek to the head of the Army Manpower Division, 6.7.1987; DMA, folder 50721, file 3, R. Bar to the legal advisor to the defense establishment, 7.2.1987. See also YLA, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 9.29.1987, p. 7, from the statement by Chairman of the Public Council H. Adar who cited Bar-Lev’s comments by saying that “a change that has been in practice for many years will result that one portion of police and

The Army and the Public Council for Commemorating the Soldier 

 69

The importance of the exceptional cases issue and the fundamental issues that were involved required a deliberation in the council plenum and not only in the Permanent Committee – especially as only now, given the matter of the prison wardens, the council entered the nub of the entire exceptional cases issue. In anticipation of the discussion the council sought to learn about the history of including exceptional cases and hear the position of the Army on the matter. From the Army’s clarifications it emerged that its position to a large extent resembled the position that had been taking shape in the deliberation of the Permanent Committee – in other words the Law of Military Cemeteries was intended to regulate the burial of military personnel, and aside from them military burial would be allowed only for members of the security forces who fell in the line of duty. The Army detailed its position: Our fundamental position is that it is fit and proper to establish separate cemeteries for soldiers and exclusively for soldiers. This allocation constitutes an expression of the special attitude felt by the state to its fallen soldiers. This allocation is intended to symbolize the special character of the soldiers’ activity and the special character of military service that is totally different from any other service. Nonetheless we cannot ignore the fact that the service by members of the other “security forces” frequently involves great risks and there is no doubt about its importance to the country’s security, especially that frequently they are based and “shoulder to shoulder” alongside the soldiers in their various activities. For this reason, and as long as there is no special cemetery for the other security forces, we found the burial of those who are not soldiers to be justified provided that the activity in which they died was real military activity or something similar... the current situation is not characterized by a uniform approach, is not correct, it was erroneous from the outset and it should not persist. Such a situation harbors a danger of breaking down all the barriers and invites demands by various groups for including them in the framework of those eligible for burial in a military cemetery because they are presumably deprived due to the lack of a consistent and uniform approach. We do not ignore the fact that our position, should it be accepted, will establish a different norm and there will be various groups (in addition to policemen and prison wardens) who cannot enter the portals of the military cemetery. If our fundamental approach will be accepted the lack of clarity regarding those eligible for burial in the military cemetery will decrease and the uniqueness and specialness befitting it and those interred there in popular opinion will be preserved.⁷⁶

The Army found it difficult, however, to remove the reserve major generals and lieutenant generals from the eligibility list, and the justification that it provided for their inclusion was “that at the time of their military activity they symbolized the Army for the people.” prison service personnel would be buried in military cemeteries and another portion would not. There is no doubt that such a situation will cause a justified disgruntlement among those serving in the police and the National Prison Service and their families.” 76 Handwritten letter (above, footnote 75).

70 

 From a Military Cemetery to a Cemetery for the Security Forces

The position of the Public Council for Commemorating the Soldier was even more extreme than that of the Permanent Committee. And this is how Shmuel Eyyal, a reserve major general and a former head of the Army Manpower Division, put it: I think that we should cut back to the greatest extent possible any option for expanding the population that is not defined under the law of the IDF as a soldier! [exclamation point in original]. We should cut back totally, and in no shape or manner allow the committees, even if they are most important in determining things for political figures and are composed of representatives from all the parties, from all stripes and hues, to introduce things and make determinations on this matter. This is a matter of life and death... I believe that we as a young nation are committing some very severe mistakes in blurring the IDF’s uniqueness... it is not permissible to expand this in any shape or manner. What happened with the police was also an exception. I don’t see any reason why there shouldn’t be a law in the framework of the police laws that will establish a cemetery for the policemen! [exclamation point in original]... [Today] it is the prison wardens, this will be followed by customs officials, after that all government workers, after that veterans of what have you... my dear sirs, I believe that walking on Israel’s roads is incomparably more dangerous than the entire activity of prison wardens in the State of Israel... I view the opportunity that has been granted us as an internal obligation... to close all the loopholes… I know that this is difficult, I know that it is very easy to be a good committee and good people and adopt that position which as a person I can sympathize with – what can one say to a person who has sustained a loss, what can one say to him... I knew scores of cases like this personally and was approached by families in cases where every single one is serious but this has no relevance to the IDF law and the Law of Military Cemeteries and the definition of the term soldier.⁷⁷

The deliberation concluded with a decision to make it clear to the minister that the council had only recently become aware that there was no legal sanction for burying civilians in military cemeteries and the council viewed itself obligated to propose to the minister an idea for amending the law on this issue.⁷⁸

Rabin’s Demands for the Unlimited Expansion of the Minister’s Prerogatives, 1985 In 1985 Defense Minister Rabin requested that the legal advisor to the defense establishment renew the process of legislation governing exceptional cases, a process that had been aborted in 1980, but insisted that the following passage be added that authorized the defense minister “to grant military burial according 77 AA, file 1163/90/121, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 7.17.1984, pp. 16-17, citation from the words of S. Eyyal. 78 Ibid., p. 23.

Rabin’s Demands for the Unlimited Expansion of the Minister’s Prerogatives 

 71

to his discretion.”⁷⁹ In this manner the minister sought to obtain more than what the legislative proposal of 1980 had sought to attain, a proposal that the subcommittee of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee had already totally rejected. From a legal standpoint, because of the lack of consecutiveness the legislative proposal of 1980 had expired and the minister was entitled to present a new proposal, but weren’t he or his advisors aware of the weighty public explanations that were raised at the time by members of the legislative subcommittee of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, that contained not an iota of political self interest? It was actually the directive of the minister that opened the gate to pressures by interested parties and aroused apprehension that the dam was about to burst. In any event, the legal branch of the Defense Ministry found it difficult to promote the legislative process regarding exceptional cases, and at the end of 1989 the deputy legal advisor to the defense establishment, Ruth Bar, clarified that the matter in its entirety was no longer on the agenda.⁸⁰ From subsequent correspondence it emerges that the legal advisor to the defense establishment had decided not to take action to amend the law.⁸¹ From the standpoint of the system, the difficulty inherent in promoting legislation was, however absurd it may sound, the most comfortable position – although this was neither a normal nor legal situation – because it permitted handling exceptional cases as had been customary in the past, allowed the minister a degree of almost unfettered freedom to determine by himself which citizens would be buried in military cemeteries, and spared him the need to tangle with the police or the families of inspectors and retired inspectors who had passed away. It would appear that an arrangement in this spirit, in other words a continuation of the status quo where without an amendment to the law policemen who did not die in the line of duty as well as inspectors and chief inspectors would continue to be buried in military cemeteries, was reached between the Defense Ministry and the Ministry of Public Security (Police) and was authorized by the government.⁸²

79 DMA, folder 4939, file 4, H. Yisraeli to the legal advisor to the defense establishment, 5.14.1985. 80 Ibid., R. Bar to H. Yisraeli, 11.20.1989. 81 DMA, folder 50721, file 3, L. Tsabari to Y. Telraz, 11.29.1990; ibid., Y. Telraz to the legal advisor to the defense establishment, 12.6.1990. 82 Clear allusions to this can be found in DMA, file L47373, Y. Yudkewitz to the head of the Rehabilitation Branch, 11.3.1999.

72 

 From a Military Cemetery to a Cemetery for the Security Forces

The Process for Amending the Law is Renewed during the Early 90s and is Again Halted At the close of 1990 the issue arose again by chance. This occurred following the death of a Youth Corps member from the accidental discharge of a bullet, and there were feverish deliberations in the military advocacy system regarding her eligibility for a military funeral and burial in a military cemetery. But then Yosef Telraz, the head of the Advisory and Legislative Branch in the advocacy, posed the innocent question to the legal advisor of the defense establishment of why the legislative proposal regarding exceptional cases had been abandoned and “perhaps it is presently fitting to resubmit them at least on those issues that did not arouse controversy.”⁸³ He further added – and most justifiably – what his predecessors and others had uttered decades ago (although he was perhaps unaware of this) that “I doubt that it is proper to persevere with the present situation where a discrepancy between the law and another reality, that has already found expression in the Army ordinances, exists.⁸⁴ In early 1991 Telraz initiated preliminary discussions whose purpose was to renew the process for amending the law on the issue of the exceptional cases. Again disputes from the past were revealed concerning the policemen but this time the disputes were not between the Army and the council on the one hand and the Defense Ministry on the other hand but within the office of the legal advisor to the defense establishment itself. The advisor, Dov Shefi, believed that one should take into account the actual situation where policemen were buried in military cemeteries and one should legitimate what had been done in the past (Shefi incorporated in the rationale for the amendment what the defense establishment had intended to do years ago, in other words to legitimate the past).⁸⁵ Therefore, despite the recommendation of the Public Council, one should incorporate in the list of exceptional cases not only those who fell in the line of duty. The opinion of his deputy, Ruth Bar, ran contrary to his position: “Policemen who fell in the line of duty [are] exactly like Mossad members and General Security Service members. Why this discrimination?”⁸⁶ 83 DMA, folder 50721, file 3, Y. Telraz to the legal advisor of the Defense Ministry, 11.11.1990. 84 Ibid., Y. Telraz to the legal advisor of the defense establishment, 12.6.1990. 85 It is not clear if Shefi was aware of the fact or merely expressed the opinion of his predecessors. 86 DMA, folder 53451, file 4, the deputy legal advisor to the defense establishment to the head of the Advisory and Legislation Branch, 1.30.1991 – source of the citation. See also ibid., the head of the Advisory and Legislative Branch to R. Bar, 2.4.1991; ibid., N. Pearlman to the head of the Advisory and Legislation Branch, 2.6.1991; ibid., Y. Telraz to N. Pearlman, 2.13.1991; ibid., file L25083, Y. Telraz to the legal advisor of the defense establishment, 1.13.1991, enclosed is a memorandum of draft legislation for the Law of Military Cemeteries, amendment no. 2, 5751-1991.

Scathing Criticism is Voiced by the State Comptroller 

 73

In May 1991 the memorandum for the draft legislation was completed but this time as well the amendment proposal did not progress beyond the corridors of the Defense Ministry. In June 1991 Dov Shefi announced that Haim Yisraeli, the assistant to the Defense Minister, “decided to postpone publication of the draft law on the discussion until the new chairman of the Public Council for Commemorating the Soldier would assume his post.”⁸⁷ This was not accompanied by an explanation.

Scathing Criticism is Voiced by the State Comptroller and the Renewal of the Legislative Process during the 90s In 1995 the State Comptroller again reiterated his comments regarding the deviation from the instructions of the law in bestowing military burial lot rights to that group of slain that was detailed above. As opposed to the early 80s, when the Comptroller only alluded to the deviation, this time he noted this explicitly: “Setting eligibility for burial in the military cemeteries is frequently done in contravention of the Law of Military Cemeteries... but on the basis of internal agreements that were adopted in the Defense Ministry. Over the years disputes arose regarding eligibility of deceased to be buried in military cemeteries such as: prison wardens in the line of duty, Army invalids with a high degree of incapacity who died after they were no longer in military service, soldiers who were injured during their service who were discharged or fired from security service while they were hospitalized and passed away after their service during that same period of hospitalization, and workers of the security forces and the Mossad who did not die in the line of duty.”⁸⁸ Therefore, the Comptroller demanded that the Defense Ministry take action to amend the law on this matter “in a fashion that will explicitly define the population groups eligible for burial in military cemeteries although at the time of their demise they were not soldiers.”⁸⁹ Given the report by the State Comptroller the Defense Ministry began to promote the draft legislation. In March 1997 the office had already prepared a memorandum for the draft legislation allowing the defense minister to authorize burial in military cemeteries to a group of exceptional cases who had died while no longer serving; likewise ordinances were drawn up that detailed these exceptional cases, according to the current situation in the military cemeteries: major generals and upwards, inspectors and higher, workers of the General Security 87 DMA, folder 53451, file 4, D. Shefi to Z. Cohen, 6.30.1991. 88 The State Comptroller (1995), p. 829. 89 Ibid., p. 831.

74 

 From a Military Cemetery to a Cemetery for the Security Forces

Service and the Mossad who died in the line of duty, policemen – including those who did not die in the line of duty, prison wardens who died in the line of duty, border guard policemen, underground fighters who had died prior to the establishment of the state, Army and police invalids who were discharged and died during a consecutive hospitalization from the time of their release, holders of awards for valor, youth corps and cadets who died while performing emergency service, volunteers of the civil guard who died in the course of a volunteer action and because of it.⁹⁰

Reservations on the Part of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee and Reversals on the Issue of the Policemen, 2000-2001 Similar to what had occurred in the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee 20 years previously, the same thing happened in the committee this time as well. It was again demonstrated that the committee would not serve as a rubber stamp on a seemingly marginal matter in its areas of involvement. It emerged that the legislator in 2000, just like his counterparts in 1980, wanted to preserve the essence of a military cemetery and restrict the number of exceptions. Members of the Subcommittee for Legislation of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee of the Knesset headed by Yossi Katz expressed reservations about the existing distinction between the dead of the police force and the dead of the General Security Service, the prison service and the Mossad (who were not eligible for burial in a military cemetery if they did not die in the line of duty). Likewise reservations were expressed about the distinction between ranks – major generals and lieutenant generals, inspectors and chief inspectors reserve as opposed to other senior ranks. Knesset Member Dan Meridor (the chairman of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee) expressed criticism that the draft legislation did not set any criteria whatsoever in determining the groups eligible for burial in military cemeteries, thus leaving grounds for apprehension that the determination of group eligibility would be performed arbitrarily. In his opinion, even though we

90 DMA, file L19525, A. Kahalani to Y. Mordechai, 2.18.1997; ibid., a memorandum on the Law of Military Cemeteries, 5757-1997, 1.20.1997; ibid., draft of the ordinances 1985; ibid., N. Pearlman to N. Entebbe, 1.20.1997; ibid., file L28379, Y. Yudkewitz to H. Yisraeli, 3.24.1997, enclosed is a memorandum on the Law of Military Cemeteries, amendment no. 4, 5757-1997; ibid., file L35225, A. Lischansky to the defense minister, 11.7.1999, enclosed is a draft of the Law of Military Cemeteries, amendment no. 4, 5760-1999; ibid., file L57085, General Staff order 38.0116, deciding on a military funeral and burial in the military cemetery, May 30, 1968.

Reservations on the Part of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee 

 75

were dealing with legally anchoring the current situation in the military cemeteries, the law had to foresee the future and therefore one should prescribe by law (i.e., in the primary legislation), if not the eligible groups themselves, then at the very least the criteria for establishing the groups’ eligibility. Because of these reservations the committee demanded that the Defense Ministry present it with such criteria that would be fixed by law, and by employing them one could derive the list of exceptional cases that would then be published with the authorization of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee in the ordinances. It was made clear to the Defense Ministry that “it was possible that within the framework of the law, the eligibility of groups of people who are currently being buried in military cemeteries would be removed in order to prevent discrimination among various groups since it is not a fixed privilege to be buried in a military cemetery.”⁹¹ They clearly understood in the Defense Ministry the direction in which the wind was blowing in the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, and it was decided in mid-2002 to remove from the previous exceptional cases list policemen who had died while not in the line of duty, as well as retired inspectors and chief inspectors and invalid policemen. In this way the list of eligibles was reduced, the status of the policemen was equalized to all other exceptional cases belonging to the security forces who were not soldiers, and one could define a logical category of eligibles: members of the State of Israel’s security forces who were not soldiers who fell at their posts in defending the state. In other words: policemen, prison wardens, Mossad agents, members of the General Security Service, on condition that all these had fallen in the line of duty.⁹² However, it appears that in presenting such a list the Defense Ministry did not pay attention to legally anchoring the current situation that de facto existed in the military cemeteries, although it had been requested to do so by the State Comptroller. As could have been foreseen in advance, the Ministry of Public Security opposed this decision,⁹³ but despite this the Defense Ministry passed on the new list of exceptional cases to the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee.⁹⁴ Nevertheless it seems that the Defense Ministry was aware that in view of the substantial differences of opinion between the two ministries one could not continue to pursue the legislative process – just as had

91 DMA, file L47373, Y. Yudkewitz to the head of the Rehabilitation Branch, 2.29.2000 – source of the citation. See also FADCA, protocol of the Subcommittee on Legislation meeting, 2.28.2000. 92 DMA, file L47373, Y. Yudkewitz to B. Friedner, 5.14.2000, enclosing the proposal for the Law of Military Cemeteries, amendment no. 4, expanding the applicability of the law, 5760-1999, a proposal on criteria. 93 Ibid., Y. Yudkewitz to H. Yisraeli, 5.7.2000. 94 See above, footnote 92; ibid., Y. Yudkewitz to H. Yisraeli, 5.7.2000.

76 

 From a Military Cemetery to a Cemetery for the Security Forces

occurred 10 years previously at the end of the first period of Rabin’s stewardship as defense minister and Bar-Lev’s term as Minister of Police.⁹⁵ The Public Council that had been totally uninvolved in this legislative process and without any reference to the decisions by the Defense Ministry to promote the legislation⁹⁶ decided in January 2001 that “henceforth, only policemen who had died while in the line of duty and as a result of that duty would be buried in military cemeteries.”⁹⁷ This position (that was ratified also by Defense Minister Barak)⁹⁸ provided backing to the measures of the Defense Ministry vis-à-vis the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee. Behind the council’s decision was a request by the General Security Service to allow burial in military cemeteries even to those from among its ranks who had died while not in the line of duty, as was the custom for policemen.⁹⁹ Following that same request it became clear to the council that it had never recommended the inclusion of all policemen in the list of eligibles for burial in military cemeteries; the converse was true, although in practice the system had allowed burial in a military cemetery for every fallen policeman. Most council members believed that one should halt the erosion regarding the policemen in order not to encourage demands on the part of other groups such as the General Security Service, and thus prevent any change in the essence of the military cemetery as a cemetery for soldiers, especially “as no such thing exists anyplace in the whole wide world… members of the police are civil servants and from this perspective they are citizens in every sense of the word.”¹⁰⁰ Nevertheless, many council members believed that one should not alter the current situation, and one should even apply it to General Security Service members. Thus, for example, one member argued “how will it be possible to establish after 30 years which policeman or General Security Service person died from cardiac arrest and whether this is a result of what he had accumulated over the years.”¹⁰¹ The decision by the council and the defense minister on January 2001 that “henceforth, only policemen who had died while in the line of duty and as a result of that duty would be buried in military cemeteries”¹⁰² was adopted to the 95 For allusions to this see above, footnote 93. 96 DFCSA, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 7.25.2001, p. 27. 97 DMA, file L57085, the chairman of the Public Council to H. Yisraeli, 1.18.2001. 98 Ibid., A. Muallem to H. Yisraeli, 8.22.2001. 99 Ibid., Y. Yudkewitz to the head of the Rehabilitation Branch, 8.13.2002. 100 DFCSA, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 7.25.2001, p. 42. 101 Ibid., protocol of the Public Council meeting, 1.4.2001 – source of the citation. Those opposing the police added further: “If you take the police you’ll see how many policemen there are in the offices who are members of the apparatus.” On this see ibid. See also ibid., protocol of the Public Council meeting, 7.25.2001. 102 See above, footnote 97.

Reservations on the Part of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee 

 77

great displeasure of the Ministry for Public Security¹⁰³ – the same thing that had happened following the adoption of a similar decision regarding policemen in 1984.¹⁰⁴ Shlomo Ben Ami, the minister for Public Security, pointedly demanded that Prime Minister and Defense Minister Barak “should act immediately to rescind the decision and restore the status quo ante [that had existed since 1977].”¹⁰⁵ In other words, Ben Ami demanded that Barak perpetuate the arrangements that have prevailed between Defense Minister Rabin and the Police Minister Bar-Lev. The minister’s vociferousness reflected the anger and stupefication of the top police brass who could not fathom the logic behind wounding the policemen, and this particularly in one of the most difficult periods in police work since the establishment of the state – the period of the clash with the Palestinians where the civilian rear had effectively become the front. The Public Council, upon being presented with the police’s demand, decided at the close of deliberation to rescind its decision that had been taken half a year previously. This dramatic change is most surprising, because of the following reasons: The decision passed nearly unanimously; we are not dealing with a trivial matter but with a substantial issue; the chairman of the council opposed the new decision;¹⁰⁶ and the legal advisors of the Defense Ministry warned the council that taking a decision opposed to the one that had been taken in January would lead to demands on the part of additional security units (such as the General Security Service, the Mossad, and the prison service) for equalized conditions: “And it is possible that somebody will petition the High Court of Justice and say ‘why am I different?’”¹⁰⁷ “And I tell you that from a legal standpoint it will be impossible to discriminate between General Security Service members, Mossad members and members of the police force. All three of these organizations have operational units.”¹⁰⁸ Indeed, there were isolated individuals on the council who stuck to the decisions that had been adopted in January because they feared breaching the essential framework of a military cemetery, “that really turns the matter into a fiasco... and everybody is going to stand in line and we will not be able to tell them no... And they will fill the cemeteries... with people whom I have nothing against... but if we were to mix them with people who served in the

103 DMA, file L57085, Y. Yudkewitz to the head of the Rehabilitation Branch, 3.1.2001; ibid., S. Ben Ami to E. Barak, 2.19.2001; above, footnote 88; above, footnote 98. 104 See above, p. 68. 105 Letter from S. Ben Ami (above, footnote 103). 106 DFCSA, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 7.25.2001, p. 39, from the statement by H. Keller. 107 Ibid., pp. 40-41, from the statement by H. Mor. 108 Ibid., p. 45, from a statement by Y. Yudkewitz.

78 

 From a Military Cemetery to a Cemetery for the Security Forces

Israel Defense Forces... and that is the essence and the basis...”¹⁰⁹ The question of what led to the turnabout in the members’ position becomes even more acute. The appearance of the top police brass in the company of the deputy minister before the Public Council, the explanations that they presented including the issue of the timing – coming at the height of terror attacks in regions under police supervision – all these definitely exerted their influence, especially as one was not talking about a request for new privileges, but merely preserving existing privileges by force of a custom that had been in effect for 25 years. These were compounded by the clear statements by the head of the Division for Commemorating the Soldier, Aryeh Muallem, to the effect that the January decision was a decree that the public could not abide by, and it also annulled the decision of the defense minister from 1977, and the current defense minister apparently was not aware of this.¹¹⁰ Accompanying the arguments for preserving existing rights, new arguments were raised at the council session that decided to rescind the decision from January, arguments that had not been raised at the previous session and that foresaw future developments. These arguments gave expression both to the concept emphasizing the educational value of a military cemetery and its role in imparting tradition as well as a concept that viewed all the security forces as a single body serving Israel’s security with the Army being only a single component.¹¹¹ In their opinion the objective could not be implemented without the combined role of the operational force and the administrative force, as Adi Mintz, a council member, argued: “And just as the Golani brigade cannot run and fight without a quartermaster sergeant, and without the cook and driver, likewise the Israeli police cannot fight, nor the General Security Service or the Mossad... we must take off our hats and salute them.”¹¹² A byproduct of this concept was the need to redefine the military cemetery not only as a place of eternal repose for those who have fallen in the Army, but as a cemetery for the security forces or alternatively “a cemetery for the fighters of Israel,” precisely as “Memorial Day is called the general memorial day for those who have fallen in Israel’s battles.”¹¹³ The council members could not ignore the new thought-provoking arguments. It should therefore come as no surprise that the council’s next step would be to confirm the eligibility of all those who had died in the General Security Service

109 Ibid., pp. 42-43, from the words of Y. Lautenberg. 110 Ibid., p. 52, from the statement by A. Muallem. 111 Ibid., p. 40, from the statement by P. Cohen. 112 Ibid., p. 49, from the statement by A. Mintz. 113 Ibid., p. 50, from the statement by A. Muallem.

Expanding the Rights of the General Security Service 

 79

and the Mossad, and not only those who had fallen in the line of duty, for military burial in a military cemetery.¹¹⁴

Expanding the Rights of the General Security Service and Mossad Fallen At the start of the second millennium the process of amending the law was again arrested and was not renewed till this work was submitted for publication at the close of 2006. Presently the defense establishment is guided in determining those eligible for burial in military cemeteries only by a General Staff ordinance 38.0116 (Paragraph 2) of 1968 (that includes an amendment from the year 2000), which inter alia allows the defense minister to decide by a special dispensation on the burial of civilians in a military cemetery. Indeed, in recent years use was made of this paragraph in the case where a couple was murdered in a terrorist attack when the husband was a soldier and the wife a civilian.¹¹⁵ A number of factors accounted for the hold up in the legislation: demands on the part of the security forces (who were not soldiers) to expand their eligibility; the reversion of the Defense Ministry and the Public Council to the original expanded list of exceptions that had been turned down at the time by the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee; the request by Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz to study the entire issue in-depth; and the Yad Labanim organization’s rallying to preserve the original character of the military cemetery. We will address these developments below. The decision by the Public Council to reverse itself on the matter of the policemen¹¹⁶ made the amended proposal regarding exceptions that the Defense Ministry had submitted to the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee in mid-2002 an irrelevant proposal. At the same time the defense establishment and the council repeatedly confronted requests on the part of the prison service, the General Security Service and the Mossad to include their people who had died while not in the line of duty among those eligible for burial in military cemeteries. This request received reinforcement from the decision to restore the rights of the policemen to their orig114 In practice already at the end of the council meeting on 7.25.2001 a decision was adopted in the council “to apply the Law of Military Cemeteries to all members of the security forces: the IDF, the Israeli police, the Mossad and the Israel Security Agency,” but it is possible that the detail regarding the Israel Security Agency and the Mossad was forgotten, because the focus of that meeting was the issue of the police. On this see ibid., p. 58, from a statement by Chairman of the Council Y. Gavish. 115 DMA, file L57085, General Staff order 38.0116, 5.30.1968. 116 Ibid., A. Muallem to H. Yisraeli, 8.22.2001.

80 

 From a Military Cemetery to a Cemetery for the Security Forces

inal status.¹¹⁷ The current events also aroused the issue of the eligibility of those who had fallen in the line of duty from the ranks of emergency squads in Jewish communities that had been hit by terrorist attacks.¹¹⁸ Given all these demands it was agreed in the Defense Ministry and the Public Council during the latter half of the year 2002 to return to the list of exceptions that had been decided upon in 1997, and not depart from it. This list did provide expression to the existing situation, but in the beginning of 2000 the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee had requested to introduce an amendment to it.¹¹⁹ Moreover, Defense Minister Mofaz refused (at the beginning of 2003) to adopt for the time being the new and more lenient council decisions arguing that the issue was a “sensitive and complicated” one that required discussion with senior members of his ministry.¹²⁰ The decision by the defense minister is apparently related to the enlistment of the Yad Labanim organization – for the first time in the organization’s history – to oppose a list of exceptions that had been agreed upon jointly by the Defense Ministry and the Public Council. The organization approached the minister asking him not to ratify this agreement pending a full ranging discussion with Yad Labanim’s involvement. The organization’s petition contained inaccuracies, but it clearly reflected the deep apprehension that the military cemetery would lose in its character and uniqueness as a cemetery for soldiers. It would appear that one encountered for the first time in many years such a strong protest against the trend – that although it was not planned in advance, but was the result of continued erosion since the establishment of the state – to turn a military cemetery from a cemetery for IDF soldiers on active duty to a cemetery for the security forces and their former high command. This is what the chairman of the organization wrote in January 2003: The Law of Military Cemeteries... determines who is eligible for military burial. In practice the law is being transgressed because the eligibility for military burial has been expanded due to various and sundry pressures that negate the essence of the law. Never has there been a fertile discussion regarding eligibility for military burial and recently various parties have gone as far as to recommend populations that are not defined by the law as having fallen in military service... from a perusal of the agreement we detect that recently one acknowledged populations such as the officers of the Israeli police force, prison wardens who fell in the line of duty (log keepers, etc.), volunteers of the civil guard, policemen who were 117 Ibid., Y. Yudkewitz to the head of the Rehabilitation Branch, 8.13.2002; ibid., the managing assistant to the head of the Rehabilitation Branch to the senior deputy of the legal advisor of the defense minister, 10.7.2002. 118 Ibid., R. Bar, 11.17.2002. 119 Ibid., H. Mor to Y. Yudkewitz, 12.17.2002, enclosed are details about the additional populations; ibid., H. Mor to B. Pelkowicz, 12.16.2002; Maariv On-Line, 12.9.2003. 120 Ibid., R. Bar to the legal advisor of the Defense Ministry, 1.9.2003.

Expanding the Rights of the General Security Service 

 81

injured or contracted illness during their service, youth corps members. These populations have nothing in common with military service with the exception of the General Security Service and the Mossad. We view the expansion of eligibility for burial as a depreciation in the status and memory of our children who fell in Israel’s battles. The difference between the nature and type of service is clear. We ask your Excellency to stop the erosion that has occurred on this difficult and sensitive issue and not grant authorization to the proposed expansion. Let us note that due to the erosion that has been created even civilians are being buried in military cemeteries.¹²¹

But did this protest come too late? It would seem that the answer is positive. The trend towards expanding the eligibles – or in other words the erosion – was not reduced after that protest; the reverse in fact is the case. During 2003, following a request by the heads of the secret services, the Public Council decided to expand eligibility for burial to those General Security Service personnel and Mossad members who had died outside the line of duty. There was no reason to deprive them now that de jure recognition had been extended to policemen who died while not in the line of duty. “General Security Service personnel and Mossad personnel are unknown soldiers and there is no difference between them and policemen and soldiers.”¹²² The Defense Ministry ratified the decision,¹²³ and the head of the Division for Commemorating the Soldier was quoted in the media as a person who strongly supported the decision: “This is an innovation, this puts everything connected with the death of the security forces personnel into order. Mossad and General Security Service members deserve to be buried in military cemeteries, just as soldiers and policemen are buried.”¹²⁴ It would appear that the statement conveys reconciliation with the fact that the military cemetery in Israel has de facto become a cemetery for the security forces without any legal imprimatur and perhaps even in contravention of the law. But there is no doubt that the process reflects the singularity of the situation in Israel, especially in recent years, when the distinction between the activity of soldiers and the activity of the other security forces continues to blur. Likewise – in a paraphrase of Adi Mintz – one cannot deny the fact that the contribution of the “pen” to the success of the “spear” is not negligible. One can assume with a large measure of plausibility that at a certain time in the not-too-distant future there will be renewed discussion on the case of the emergency squads in the communities and on the matter of prison wardens. 121 Ibid., E. Ben Shem to S. Mofaz, 1.19.2003 – the source of the citation. See also ibid., letter from R. Bar, 1.21.2003; ibid., S. Pearlman to G. Dovev, 2.24.2003. 122 Maariv On-Line (above, footnote 119). 123 Ibid. 124 Ibid.

Chapter 4 The Tombstone Selecting the Uniform Model of the Military Tombstone Considerations Involved in Determining the Uniform Model Already in the first half of 1949 the Branch for Commemorating the Soldier decided that the military tombstone would be uniform on graves of the fallen, both in terms of shape and in terms of the written text.¹ The component of uniformity and equality in the shape of the tombstones was one of the most striking elements in the United States military cemeteries (that were originally established following the Civil War), in Europe (for example in the British, French and German cemeteries), in the countries of the British Commonwealth, such as Canada (cemeteries that had been established in the wake of the two world wars) as well as in British military cemeteries in combat areas, for example in Belgium and France. In Israel as well it was possible to identify this prominent component in the British military cemeteries that had been established during the 20s, following the First World War, on Mount Scopus in Jerusalem, in Haifa, in Beersheba, in Ramlah, in Gaza and in Dir el-Balah.² The uniformity of these military cemeteries symbolizes the unity of the national spirit, the bonds that had been forged in the wake of the war experiences, and it also provided expression to the values of fulfilling a mission with a joint objective and the fraternity of the fighters.³ For that reason the decision that in Israel as well uniformity would typify the tombstones in the military cemetery, on the model of tombstones in the military cemeteries throughout the world, is not surprising.⁴ And this is how the head of the Branch for Commemorating the Soldier, Yosef Dekel, approached the secretariats of all the settlement movements with a request to clarify “to all the communities affiliated with you that the Defense Ministry regards it as a sacred obligation to establish permanent tombstones for all those who fell in the defense force at every location 1 AA, file 852/51/367, the Director of the Unit for Commemorating the Hebrew Soldier in the War of Independence to the Chief of Staff, 4.24.1949, enclosing terms of the announcement (tender) on the establishment of a military cemetery in Tel Aviv and Afula and a uniform tombstone for IDF war dead. 2 With regards to the British cemeteries in the countries of the British Commonwealth, in Israel and throughout the world, see Fuchs (1996), pp. 114-139; Benvenisti (1990), pp. 37-44; Kliout (1994); Gal-Peer (1987); Gibson and Ward (1989); Hurst (1929); Schepens (1974); Young (2003). 3 Mosse (1990), pp. 44-47, 78-80, 82-84; Mosse (1981); Holt (1992). 4 Ostfeld (2000), p. 223; Fuchs (1996), pp. 115-119.

Considerations Involved in Determining the Uniform Model 

 83

where they were buried. We want to erect a tombstone with a uniform shape over the graves of all the fallen... therefore one should refrain from erecting tombstones on the graves of the military fallen.”⁵ The Army itself did not allow the parents to erect tombstones “and at the same time it itself does not set tombstones.”⁶

Fig. 14: Mount Royal Military Cemetery for those who fell in the Second World War, Montreal, Canada. Source: Author’s photographs, November 2003.

The decision regarding uniformity also coincided with the position of the Branch for Commemorating the Soldier that sought to concentrate all activities connected with commemoration and its form and nature exclusively in its hands. In June 1949 the branch made an announcement to the press that read: “From various sources, and primarily from the circles of the bereaved parents, information has reached the Defense Ministry regarding their attempts to raise private funds for purposes that the fundraisers call ‘commemorating fallen of the War of Independence,’ be it for a building erected in the name of the fallen who were brought for burial nearby, or for any monuments established at private initiative, etc. Parents turned to the Defense Ministry and wrote ‘this is an insult to the honor of the heroes.’ It would be worthwhile to desist from these activities till the 5 AA, file 580/56/377, Y. Dekel to the secretariats of the settlement movements, 7.8.1949. 6 SIA, protocols of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee meetings, protocol of 5.25.1950, p. 10. See also ibid., p. 11.

84 

 The Tombstone

popular institutions should decide how and where to commemorate the martyrs. The Defense Ministry has established a special branch for commemorating the fallen from the war, and alongside this branch a Public Council is being set up where representatives of the parents participate. The branch in consultation with this council will set the methods of commemoration and the forms it will take. The parents are called upon not to assent to solicitations for monetary contributions that they receive without authorization from the branch.”⁷ After a number of military units established monuments to the fallen, the branch in a letter that it sent to the Army manpower division in July 1949 demanded that “instructions be issued to ensure that in the future every army unit acting independently or in tandem with civilian institutions that sought to commemorate its members must discuss the matter with our branch.”⁸

Fig. 15: British military cemetery in France, similar to others throughout Europe, for His Majesty’s fallen soldiers in the First World War. Source: Hurst (1929).

In April 1949 the Branch for Commemorating the Soldier in association with the Engineers Association announced a competition between architects, engineers and artists in Israel for selecting a uniform tombstone for all the Israel Defense Forces fallen, as well as to plan a military cemetery in Tel Aviv and Afula. The competition committee included the most senior contemporary architects in Israel, 7 AA, file 580/56/377, announcement to the press and radio, 6.21.1949. 8 Ibid., Y. Dekel to the head of Army manpower division, 7.8.1949. See also ibid., file 1151/51/199, letter from K. Kitt on 8.14.1949 regarding commemoration of the soldiers; ibid., file 1559/52/67, Y. Dekel to Y. Yadin, 1.17.1951.

Considerations Involved in Determining the Uniform Model 

 85

Fig. 16: British military cemetery in Belgium for His Majesty’s fallen soldiers in the First World War. Source: Gibson and Ward (1989).

including Aryeh Sharon and Yaacov Pinkerfeld, and the winner of the competition was to serve as an advisor to the branch on the issue of the tombstones and planning the cemeteries. Among the other directives issued to participants in the competition it was stipulated that the military cemetery had to consider the past, the present and Jewish tradition,⁹ and one should prevent the planting of scattered trees alongside the graves. Regarding the tombstone the competition committee decided that the competitors had to consider the fact that we were dealing with a uniform tombstone for all the fallen; tombstones of this model would be erected in many places in Israel on uniform graves 70 cm in width and 180 cm in length. The competitors had to suggest the material for the tombstone and how it would be processed; they were also guided to preserve the modesty and simplicity of the tombstone. Another guideline determined that one should leave the major parts of the tombstone free for planting grass or flowers, once it had been ascertained that according to Jewish tradition it was permissible to leave a grave without a horizontal stone. It appears that the reason behind the decision to have the majority of the tombstone area covered with vegetation is related to the fact that already prior to the building of the tombstones the military graves were covered by flowers.¹⁰ 9 It is possible that for this reason the division did not see fit to emulate the model of the British military cemeteries in Israel as a model for Israeli military cemeteries. Compare Ostfeld (2000), p. 223. 10 RMA, S. Zemah to the Division for Commemorating the Soldier in Tel Aviv from 1949-1950,

86 

 The Tombstone

Fig. 17: Arlington Military Cemetery. Source: Author’s photographs, February 2003.

Eighteen entries were submitted to the competition. The proposal that took first place was a proposal by the architect Asher Hiram from Jerusalem, which was based on artificial stone with a metal plaque on top surrounded by vegetation. However, the council turned down Hiram’s proposal to use artificial stone and proposed using Jerusalem stone and not only for the tombstone but for all the elements of the military cemeteries and commemorative projects.¹¹ In accordance with the results of the competition and the recommendation of the panel of judges, it was decided that the tombstone would be made out of Jerusalem stone, topped with a copper plate, and the writing on it would be in bold letters.¹² Let us

without a precise date; above, footnote 1; AA, file 580/56/374, memorandum of Y. Dekel on 3.15.1949 regarding the tender (above, footnote 1); CZA, file S21/172, replies of the judicial committee regarding the competition on building military cemeteries and a uniform tombstone, undated, but it is clear that it is from the first half of 1949; SIA, unit C 5441, file 1590, a copy from the Journalists Yearbook for 1949-1950. See also RMA, the article “In Memoriam of Our Heroes” written by Gila Hai in mid-1949, alluding to debates that preceded the decision that the tombstone should be composed primarily of vegetation. Other proposals spoke of stone or concrete. 11 AA, file 580/56/378, protocol of the judging of the public competition for planning military cemeteries, July 1949. 12 AA, file 580/56/58, Y. Dekel to A. Peri, 9.8.1949, regarding various activities and budgetary expenditures of the Division for Commemorating the Soldier.

Considerations Involved in Determining the Uniform Model 

 87

Fig. 18: U.S. military cemetery in Florence, Italy. Source: http://www.abmc.gov/cemeteries/ cemeteries/fl.php.

add that beforehand already the Yad Labanim organization demanded¹³ that the tombstones should be made out of Jerusalem stone,¹⁴ and one should assume that the decision of the panel on this matter was also influenced by the organization’s demands.¹⁵ On the basis of Hiram’s plan, the Branch for Commemorating the Soldier in the early 1950 invited tenders for shaping the permanent tombstones. The Division for Commemorating the Soldier appointed a special committee that included artists, architects, military men and foreign advisors, and it decided upon the uniform model of tombstones throughout Israel in the final result. The tombstone “is uniform throughout the country. The insistence upon it is perpetual and this is something that was immutable.” The model chosen was the recumbent tombstone model slightly elevated above ground, a stone pillow at 13 Yad Labanim was established in October 1948 by a group of bereaved parents headed by Dr. Miriam Schapiro for the purpose of commemorating the fallen and their legacy and to deal with the bereaved families. On this see YLA, protocol of the Sixth Conference of Yad Labanim, Haifa, March 16-17, 1971; Services and Eligibility (2002), p. 39. On the origin of Yad Labanim see in detail Shamir (2003), pp. 46-52. See also above, chapter 1, footnote 12. 14 We will discuss the matter of the stone in detail below. 15 AA, file 88/60/62, protocol of the general meeting of the bereaved families and relatives, 1.10.1950.

88 

 The Tombstone

its head on which the inscription was written (directly on the stone and without a metal plate as Hiram had proposed), and along the length of the tombstone low floral vegetation as per the demands of the Public Council and the Yad Labanim organization.¹⁶

Fig. 19: The British military cemetery on Mount Scopus in Jerusalem for His Majesty’s fallen soldiers in the First World War. Source: Author’s photographs, March 2003.

Quite a few bereaved parents submitted demands to build the tombstone according to the model of a “standing tombstone” (as was customary for example in Eastern Europe and many places in Israel, and as was the practice as well in the British military cemeteries in Israel and throughout the world). There were those who argued that the tombstones had to be of the same model “that our parents practiced throughout thousands of years of Diaspora: that the stone should be standing. This is a blocking stone. We don’t want flowers that will sprout thorns and thistles over time. And who knows who will look after them later? I propose therefore adding: in accordance with Jewish tradition.”¹⁷ Others justified their demands for a standing tombstone by arguing that it would symbolize the

16 SIA, file C 5436/71, from the words of Y. Dekel at the Yad Labanim Convention, 9.15.1954, p. 65 – source of the citation. See also ibid., file 28/60/62, Y. Dekel to S. Avigur, 5.3.1950. 17 Yad Labanim Convention (above, footnote 16), p. 40 – the source of the citation.

Considerations Involved in Determining the Uniform Model 

 89

uprightness that came in the wake of the War of Independence,¹⁸ and there were others who argued that a standing stone not only is more comely but “in this state the letters will be more prominent making it more legible.”¹⁹

Fig. 20: The British military cemetery in Ramla for His Majesty’s fallen soldiers in the First World War. Source: Author’s photographs, March 2003.

Despite the parental demands the recumbent (reposing) tombstone model was selected and its dimensions were fixed at 190 cm in length and 80 cm in width, and it was to be in the height of 30 cm above the ground. The frontal dimensions of the pillow were set at 60 cm x 41 cm. The main reason for choosing the reposing model of the tombstone was its conformity with the Jewish tradition in terms of tombstones in Jerusalem cemeteries, and as Yosef Dekel would later report: “The Jewish tradition in Jerusalem is to have the tombstones laid flat rather than upright. For Jerusalem as well we had to have a uniform tombstone – and who was to determine the tradition that the tombstones must be particularly upright?” Adhering to the demand by the Yad Labanim organization and the Public Council for Commemorating the Soldier it was decided that the tomb would be covered lengthwise with low vegetation instead of a covering of concrete or marble. On 18 RMA, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 6.27.1955. 19 Ibid., Impressions of a Tour of the Military Cemeteries Conducted by Members of the Public Council on June 15-16, 1953, p. 6 – the citation is from a statement by Y. Persich.

90 

 The Tombstone

this matter Dekel added in his report: “We made one change in the military cemetery [as opposed to civilian cemeteries]: in the civilian cemeteries the grave is a stone along with a flower or tree alongside it. We reverse things in the military cemeteries. If there is any father who forgoes the flowers, he must inform us, and we will cover the grave.” A solution was found to the Jewish religious legal problem that prohibited the planting of shrubbery on the graves by following the directive of the chief rabbinate in a manner that met two conditions: the one, that low vegetation would be planted (no more than 15 cm in height) and the second, the soil in which the vegetation was planted was separated via concrete in a manner that prevented the roots of the plant from penetrating into the grave.²⁰ As we shall see below, not in every cemetery was the main part of the tombstone covered with low vegetation. In some cemeteries the low vegetation was replaced by marble. Let us add that subsequently the families of the fallen replaced the standard low vegetation with other vegetation. Within the Public Council as well one encountered the opinion that one should replace the low vegetation with pebbles and cacti, because “the vegetation that they are planting is not suitable and causes psychological problems to the families, because this is vegetation that changes a number of times during the year and has different colors and there is a period when it is not very pretty. Underneath there are all sorts of insects... my wife suffered a great deal from this... in this place our children who are in the majority Israeli born, they fought, ran and laid down in the valleys and wadis on pebbles, on stones, why not put on each grave a number of small stones, pebbles, and in between a few cacti.”²¹ Nevertheless, the standard vegetation handled by the Division for Commemorating the Soldier was not replaced. The military tombstone model was to be uniform not only in the military cemeteries but also in the civilian cemeteries where relatives chose to bury their beloved fallen and build them a military tombstone. “Over the years the form of a military grave has been established and it is uniform in every burial location. The military grave is modest, low, and according to the experts makes an impression when it is situated among many graves of the very same height.” Furthermore, one member of the Public Council subsequently proposed prohibiting by law the option of building a tombstone on the model of the military tombstone over the grave of someone who is not a soldier, and in 1965 a draft law was elaborated in the Defense Ministry with the intention of making this into law. The explanation for the draft legislative proposal observed: “Cases have occurred where in the civilian cemeteries military tombstones have been erected on graves that 20 Yad Labanim Convention (above, footnote 16), p. 66. 21 YLA, protocol of the meeting of the Public Council’s Permanent Committee, 7.30.1996, p. 15, from the statement by Y. Neeman.

Considerations Involved in Determining the Uniform Model 

 91

are not military graves. Since the law intended to award a special distinction to the military grave, in other words, to erect a military tombstone on the grave of a soldier who died in the course of military service, then the act of erecting a similar tombstone on a civilian grave can spoil the order set forth by law and mislead the public.” The proposal stipulated that a person erecting a tombstone following the military model on a grave that was not a military grave was subject to imprisonment of three months or a fine or the two together.²² For reasons that are not clear the draft legislation was not processed any further.

Fig. 21: A military tombstone in the Sheikh Badr civil cemetery, Jerusalem, of a soldier who fell in the War of Independence. Source: Author’s photographs, April 2002.

22 DMA, folder 4711, file 2, T. Tamir to the head of the Rehabilitation Branch, 3.16.1965, enclosing the proposed memorandum for a legislative proposal from that year – the source of all the citations. See also RMA, Impressions of a Visit in the Military Cemeteries from 6.14.1955, authored by Y. Persich.

92 

 The Tombstone

Deliberations about Choosing the Type of Uniform Stone As stated, already in 1949 the Yad Labanim organization’s demand to have the tombstone made from Jerusalem stone was adopted. The term “Jerusalem stone” is not a professional-geological term. In practice, the reference is to limestone which one can find not only in the Jerusalem vicinity but throughout the entire length of the mountain region in Israel.²³ Originally the intention was to actually use the Jerusalem stone quarries in the Jerusalem vicinity; subsequently use was made of Jerusalem stone from other places in Israel for building tombstones in military cemeteries located far from Jerusalem. In a meeting between the directors of Yad Labanim and the prime minister that took place in June 1949, the directors of Yad Labanim explained their demand by referring to the symbolic matter involved, but there was more to it. This was their explanation: “They are going to erect thousands of tombstones on the graves of our fallen sons. It would be proper to honor these graves with tombstones from Jerusalem stone. Jews in every generation took pride in a smidgen of earth from the Mount of Olives to remember Jerusalem as our first order of joy and sorrow. Let us now honor the memory of our children by having Jerusalem stone adorn their graves. This also has an important economic aspect as this work can provide a living to hundreds of families and in this way we can revive the abandoned quarries and we can help resuscitate the depressed Jerusalem economy. There are those who favor artificial stone due to the cost differential but we believe that there is no room here for such calculations.”²⁴ There is no doubt that these arguments were to a large degree influenced by similar arguments that were raised particularly at the time before the Division for Commemorating the Soldier, and apparently before Yad Labanim as well, by the Jerusalem Development Company with a view to rehabilitating the quarries and the stone industry in the Jerusalem vicinity and in this manner make a substantial contribution to the city’s economy.²⁵ 23 Prat (1987), pp. 12-15; I. Prat, telephone interview with the author, 6.5.2003. 24 RMA, Reuven Mass’s handwritten document “From the Meeting with the Prime Minister, 6.9.1949”; ibid., “Remembrances of Times Gone By,” letter to the Prime Minister, undated, but from the first half of 1950; ibid., a report from the meeting of Yad Labanim’s national committee, 8.25.1949. 25 CZA, file S21/172, a memorandum signed by Y. Schoenberger, 6.6.1949; ibid., Rabbi Z. Gold to Y. Dekel, 6.9.1949. See also RMA, a document that includes matters on the subject from the close of 1949, and authored by Reuven Mass; ibid., protocol of the Yad Labanim National Council, 11.15.1950. See also ibid., Yad Labanim Convention on 10.30.1950 regarding the use of stone purchased directly from the Arabs for the purpose of building tombstones at Nahlat Yitzhak and the military cemetery in Haifa – “those well-known murderers from Shfaram, with whom we are quite familiar.”

Deliberations about Choosing the Type of Uniform Stone 

 93

However, half a year later an argument was voiced by the Yad Labanim people that it had been erroneous on their part to insist on the demand of employing Jerusalem stone exclusively, because it has emerged “that this stone is in Arab hands” and it is improper that on the graves of the fallen they will erect tombstones made out of Arab-owned stone. Furthermore, obtaining stone from Arab quarries will take a long time “and we will have to wait years and therefore we should forgo Jerusalem stone.”²⁶ Over the course of 1950 additional difficulties were encountered with regards to Jerusalem stone: “One has to extract thousands of stones from the single quarry to receive a single stone without cracks... if we will select the stones this will take a long time perhaps over two years, there is an insufficient number of stonemasons... the indentation on the stone is soft and the letters will be blurred and impermanent... if we will stubbornly insist particularly on Jerusalem stone another two years and more will pass...” The Yad Labanim organization proposed using bronze which enjoyed widespread use in Europe. However, bronze had to be imported from abroad, and aside from the economic factor the sentimental issue also of renouncing the use of local stone in the vicinity where the sons had fallen also arose: “It is clear that from a sentimental standpoint we should support Israeli stone exclusively.” It was further argued that at a time of war “in every place that the enemy would conquer he would remove the bronze for military purposes.” Compromise suggestions talked of utilizing Jerusalem stone, and if this did not suffice, they would use stones from other places in Israel or granite imported from Sweden, such as the tomb of A.D. Gordon at Kinneret. At the end of 1950, for the reasons mentioned above and for the reason of preserving the uniformity of the tombstones, it was decided in Yad Labanim not to forgo the use of Jerusalem stone.²⁷ The Public Council for Commemorating the Soldier, that entered the foray immediately upon its establishment in the beginning of 1951, also sided with the use of local stone, in other words Jerusalem stone and stone from quarries near the cemeteries. The need to finish as quickly as possible the setting of permanent tombstones in the cemeteries on the one hand led to an expansion of the number of quarries that would be utilized beyond the Jerusalem vicinity,²⁸ and on the 26 AA, file 88/60/62, protocol of the general meeting of the bereaved parents, 1.10.1950, from a statement by member A. Shvat. See also RMA, from words by Reuven Mass at a meeting of the bereaved parents from 1953, without a precise date; Yad Labanim convention of 30.10.1950 (above, footnote 25). 27 RMA, from the protocol of the National Council of Yad Labanim, 11.15.1950. See also ibid., the meeting of the bereaved parents from 1953, without a precise date. 28 RMA, a collection of decisions by the Public Council for the years 1951-1955; ibid., the decisions by the Public Council, 3.7.1951, 4.4.1951. And see CZA, file A116/166, protocol of the Public

94 

 The Tombstone

other hand to spurning the proposal raised in the council to examine the option of using granite from the southern Negev, because transport difficulties would have induced delays in manufacturing the tombstones and laying them. For this reason local stone was selected even though it was clear that this stone – as opposed to the granite that surpassed the local stone in quality and was ideal for manufacturing tombstones especially in terms of uniformity – had “many serious defects… soft areas of lime, differences in color and the like.”²⁹ Nevertheless there were persons in the Public Council who still exhibited preference for the granite and for the following reasons: It is precisely from granite stone that one can install tombstones at maximal speed, and in a much briefer time frame than with stone located in central Israel adjacent to the cemeteries. Take for example the stone from Mount Kastel. Mount Kastel is located near Jerusalem, Kiryat Anavim, etc. However if we want to receive from this mountain stone uniform by its nature and color (something whose necessity is beyond doubt) it will prove necessary to extract many stones that are not suitable for tombstones until we find the required stone, and since stone by nature is not uniform and whereas stone that is uniform by its nature and color is rare in these mountains, then they will have to expend a great deal of time and a great deal of work for nothing, in order to find a suitable stone, and this time will exceed the time required for transporting stone from the Negev. For the granite is located in the Negev; it has masses of large uniform stone and one can quarry from them the required stones without delay and interruptions, since the masses are large and there is no difference in the quality of the stone and color in various parts of the mass. It emerges therefore that particularly tombstones made from stone adjacent to the cemeteries will cause delay which the council wanted to avoid, and from the region of Eilat one can actually transport stone at top speed. True, transport from the quarries in the Negev will be more expensive as compared to transport from other quarries. However the fact of the matter is that the company is willing to obligate itself to provide for tombstones for all the cemeteries in Israel from the Negev quarries at a price of 27 lire to the ton and is also prepared to organize the technical aspects of transport… But even if the general price of the tombstones from the Eilat quarries will somewhat exceed the price of stone from other quarries, none of us I hope will dispute the fact that in this historic project of erecting tombstones over the graves of the nation’s heroes the price of stones should not be a consideration especially as even if the prices will be higher it will be by a most negligible amount.³⁰

Council meeting, 4.4.1951, where it was stated inter alia that “following a debate it was decided by a decisive majority and conclusively… to begin immediately with preparations of the monuments from Jerusalem stone for Jerusalem and likewise from other quarries according to the locations of the cemeteries.” 29 CZA, file A116/166, Y. Persich, a member of the Public Council, to members of the Public Council, 4.8.1951. See also RMA, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 6.27.1955, that includes comments regarding the defects of Jerusalem stone. 30 Letter of Y. Persich (above, footnote 29).

Deliberations about Choosing the Type of Uniform Stone 

 95

Indeed, in light of the above the council in April 1951 decided to examine the option of granite stone,³¹ but the option was quickly dropped. Nonetheless, during the early 50s although it had already been decided to use Jerusalem stone and they began ordering it, the debate in the council between the supporters of using it and those demanding the use of granite persisted. Thus, for example, council member Yitzhak Persich decided as a result of touring the cemeteries in summer 1953 that “the [Jerusalem] stone does not make the impression that we expected. I believe that we would do the right thing by examining the possibility of installing tombstones from granite. This option is presently more feasible [from the standpoint of transport options] than it was a year ago. They have paved roads in the Negev where the granite is located.”³² In contradistinction, in January 1954 an expert on stone determined – following complaints by the parents regarding the quality of the tombstones on Mount Herzl and their demand to replace them with other tombstones – that “the tombstones at the military cemetery at Mount Herzl make a tremendous impression in their glorious simplicity. They exemplify the spirit that reverberated in the hearts of our sons and it is totally superfluous to replace them with granite stone from Sweden or Eilat. It seems to me that even if we had a fortune at our disposal, I would prefer this simple stone over the most superior granite.”³³ During the course of 1952 they began manufacturing pillows (that were sometimes referred to in the correspondence as “tombstones”) via Even Vasid Manufacturing Ltd., in preparation for setting them in the cemeteries. The Metalizator Company from Petah Tikvah performed the inscription work. The Government Yearbook for 1952 reports on the matter that “hundreds of tombstone units were already prepared for setting. The work involved in preparing the permanent tombstones is being perfected and their manufacture is being accelerated every month.”³⁴ A year later the Yearbook could already report that “the preparation of the permanent tombstones is already at the implementation stage. Two engraving machines were set up to obviate the need for inscribing by hand so the font will be clear and clean.”³⁵ By 1956, 4,000 pillows had already been laid at the cemeteries and the military sections,³⁶ and given the objective of creating nation31 RMA, decisions of the Public Council meeting, 4.24.1951. 32 RMA, Impressions of a Tour by the Public Council at the Military Cemeteries on June 15-16, 1953 written by Y. Persich. 33 AA, file 90/72/157, A. Wissotsky to Y. Dekel, 12.21.1954. 34 Government Yearbook, 1952-1953, p. 44. 35 Government Yearbook, 1953-1954, p. 46. 36 Government Yearbook, 1956-1957, p. 93. See also AA, file 90/72/156, Even Vasid Industries Ltd. to the Department for Commemorating the Soldier, 7.31.1953; ibid., a proposal for a contract with the Metalizator Company, 8.2.1953; ibid., Y. Dekel to the Metalizator Company, 8.20.1953; ibid., Y. Dekel to Even Vasid Industries Ltd., 8.25.1953; CZA, file A116/166, report on the tour by members

96 

 The Tombstone

wide uniformity it was incumbent to perform the work using the very same stone, in the same fashion and at the same factory. Of course this influenced the pace of manufacture. Thus for example Dekel reported in September 1954 to those attending the Yad Labanim gathering regarding the objective of manufacturing uniform tombstones and the implicit problems involved. He emphasized the following: “The letters must all be done with the same machine – otherwise they will not come out uniform. And if one erases letters one must do it all in the same machine – otherwise they will not be uniform. And if one were to erase the letters by grinding down the stone then the tombstones become 2 cm lower and they are no longer uniform… In Tel Aviv… one cannot make a tombstone wider than 60 cm, as there is no room there and then one must make the tombstones narrower. In Haifa… we want to make the tombstones out of the same stone, the same shape and in the same factory and a single factory cannot produce more than 200 a month, therefore this is taking so much time.”³⁷ Although it was clear that if the inscription of the letters was performed by hand the letters would come out more legible and clearer, the decision was made to perform the entire inscription by machine. This decision as well was explained by a desire to create uniformity: “This is impossible because each engraver has a different handwriting and this will mar the uniformity.”³⁸

Differences in Tombstone Topography among the Various Cemeteries As stated above, the model of the uniform monuments was mainly composed of vegetation and only a small portion of it was from stone (the pillow), on the model of the tombstones on Mount Herzl. The vegetation covering the graves was also intended to be uniform because the plant nursery at the military cemetery at Mount Herzl provided the seedlings for all the military cemeteries in Israel.³⁹ The pillow does indeed appear on all the tombstones in all the cemeteries, although it emerges that the same does not apply to the vegetation. Already in 1955, in the midst of the process of building the tombstones, it became clear to the Public Council that one could not create the bulk of the monuments everywhere out of of the Public Council of the military cemeteries in the north of Israel at the end of April 1952, signed by Y. Ben-Zvi. 37 SIA, file 5436/71, protocol of the Yad Labanim meeting, 9.15.1954, p. 70, from the report by Y. Dekel. 38 RMA, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 6.27.1955. 39 The Division for Commemorating the Soldier, report for the year 1964-1965, p. 7.

Differences in Tombstone Topography among the Various Cemeteries 

 97

Fig. 22: Example of a tombstone covered by vegetation (Mount Herzl) and one covered by stone (Rosh Pina). Source: Author’s photographs, March and April 2002.

vegetation. This was first discovered at the military cemetery in Afula, regarding which the director of the Division for Commemorating the Soldier informed the Public Council that “the Afula local council is incapable of caring for the military cemetery and therefore we have to cover the graves with marble slabs rather than grow vegetation on the graves of the fallen.” The director of the division asked the Public Council to “immediately decide on this matter.” The protocol of the council session continues and reports that “following a wide-ranging discussion regarding the military cemetery in Afula and after the architect Mr. Asher Hiram reported that one could not rely on the local council in Afula it was decided to act on the proposal of Rabbi Shaag [the chairman of the council] to cover the graves with marble slabs.”⁴⁰ And therefore in a clear deviation from the principle of uniformity,⁴¹ a second model of tombstones was created based on a marble slab instead of vegetation. Furthermore, it emerges that in the military cemetery

40 RMA, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 8.23.1955 – the source of the citations. See also ibid., protocols of the Public Council meeting, 11.1.1955, 1.16.1958. 41 See for example, YLA, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 7.1.1993, p. 37, from a statement by Z. Futerman.

98 

 The Tombstone

at Rosh Pina for example there are two types of tombstones in the very same cemetery, a phenomenon that further accentuates the blemish to unity.

Fig. 23: Military tombstone (marble cover) in the regional civil cemetery in Kfar Etzion. Source: Author’s photographs, April 2002.

The marble slab model recurred in the following years wherever one could not guarantee in advance that there would be regular upkeep of the tombstones’ vegetation – in other words this was the general case in the military sections where responsibility for maintenance was in the hands of the local municipalities and not in the hands of the Division for Commemorating the Soldier – and in the case of isolated graves where the relatives chose to bury their kin in civilian cemeteries but requested that a military tombstone be erected for them.⁴² Let us add that subsequently, in the mid-90s, a request by bereaved parents whose son was buried on Mount Herzl was presented to the Division for Commemorating the 42 See above, footnote 39. See also RMA, protocol of Yad Labanim’s Third National Convention, Petah Tikva, February 25-26, 1959. See also ibid., protocol of the Public Council meeting, 12.2.1959, where Y. Persich recommended following this model at all the isolated locations. See also YLA, protocol of the Public Council Permanent Committee meeting, 7.30.1996, p. 12. And see DMA, file L14028, protocol of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee’s Subcommittee for Legislation’s meeting, 8.28.1996, p. 13, statement by the current head of the Rehabilitation Branch, O. Chico, who apparently was unaware that at the military cemetery in Rosh Pina both models were present alongside each other.

Differences in Tombstone Topography among the Various Cemeteries 

 99

Soldier. They wanted to replace the vegetative covering on their son’s grave with a concrete slab. This was a request that had never before reached the division with regards to the cemetery on Mount Herzl. The justification provided by the family was grounded in Jewish religious law. The request was turned down by the council partially because the planting of the vegetation was not prohibited under Jewish law, particularly as this was performed by the division (who took precautions so that the roots of the vegetation were separated by concrete from the grave) as well as for the reason of preserving uniformity and preventing a situation that in a single cemetery there would be both coverage by vegetation and coverage by concrete. However we have already observed such a precedent at Rosh Pina.⁴³

Fig. 24: Military tombstone (stone cover) in Mount Herzl Military Cemetery. Source: Author’s photographs, October 2006.

In the beginning of the third millennium a similar request was raised to establish a tombstone with a stone covering at the military cemetery on Mount Herzl. On this occasion as well this request was justified on Jewish religious grounds. 43 See protocol of the Permanent Committee (above, footnote 42), pp. 12-17. See above how the Jewish religious problem regarding the vegetation was solved – a barrier of concrete between the roots of the vegetation and the grave.

100 

 The Tombstone

This time the request was granted. Indeed, since the start of the third millennium one can find on Mount Herzl a number of tombstones covered with stone and explained by the stringent religious observance of the petitioning families.⁴⁴ Out of 20,000 military tombstones located in the military cemeteries in the year 2001, a third were covered with marble and two thirds by low vegetation.⁴⁵

44 S. Abels, telephone conversation with the author, 9.29.2006. 45 DFCSA, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 3.18.2001, p. 43, from the statement by the head of the Division for Commemorating the Soldier, A. Muallem.

Chapter 5 The Uniform Inscription The Process of Formulating the Text of the Uniform Inscription on the Military Tombstone (1949-1954) The Text of the Inscription on the Military Tombstone Worldwide until the 20th Century As we noted in the previous chapter, already at the beginning of the 20th century, given the First World War, military cemeteries were established in various locations throughout the world. Their main characteristic was the principle of the physical uniformity of the tombstones. The most prominent of them were the British military cemeteries that were spread over various locations throughout the world where His Majesty’s soldiers had fallen. These cemeteries were planned and established by the Imperial War Graves Commission established in 1917. Among other things the commission determined that the tombstones in the military cemeteries would be uniform and standing, they would rise above ground to a height of 2’8” (about 80 cm), and they would incorporate in their upper portion the insignia of the dead man’s unit, his rank, name, unit, the day he was killed and his age upon death. In the central portion of the tombstone the symbol of the dead person’s faith would be noted (at the center of the symbol the option of combining the insignia of the unit, instead of noting the insignia of the unit in the upper portion of the tombstone, was available). In the lower part of the tombstone relatives were given the option of adding (at their expense) a brief personal inscription expressing their sentiments towards the person who fell in action. The length of the personal inscription was limited to 66 letters, and the space between the words was also counted as a letter.¹ By providing the option of a personal inscription in the lower half of the tombstone alongside the uniform inscription in the upper portion of the tombstone the British balanced between the public interest of equality for the fallen – that found expression in the uniform inscription – and individual rights that found expression in granting the possibility for a personal inscription.² An identical model for tombstones was 1 SCA, Additional High Court of Justice Deliberations, 5688/93, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 5.29.1994, pp. 2-5, from comments of attorney Y. Neeman; Kenyon (1918), pp. 8-11; The Fifth Annual Report (1925), pp. 1-6; Longworth (1985), pp. 29-55; Their Name Liveth (1946), pp. 1-2; Ware (1937), pp. 1-31; Gibson and Ward (1989), pp. 64-70; The Graves of the Fallen, pp. 1-11. 2 SCA (above, footnote 1), response of the petitioners to the supplementary notification by the respondents, 11.18.1994, p. 4; Longworth (1985), p. 30. See also Fuchs (1996), p. 119.

102 

 The Uniform Inscription

also established at the military cemeteries of the British Commonwealth countries, for example in Canada.

Fig. 25: Typical British military tombstone and the inscription on it in the British military cemetery in Ramla. Source: Author’s photographs, July 2002.

The principle of uniformity in the shape of the tombstones was also established at the military cemeteries in the United States. Since the Civil War the uniform tombstone model made a number of iterations. After the First World War it was decided that the model would be based on the following details: the type of stone used was “American white marble,” the tombstone would be upright at a height of 42 inches (about 107 cm), its upper edge would be slightly rounded, its width 13 inches (about 33 cm) and its thickness 4 inches (about 10 cm). It was determined that at the front of the tombstone they would inscribe the name of the deceased, his rank, the date of death, and his home state. Likewise for the first time it was determined that at the top of the tombstone the symbol of the deceased’s religion would be inscribed. On this matter only two options were established: a cross for Christians and a Star of David for Jews.³ In 1944 it was decided to add to the 3 See in the Internet site “Headstones and Markers,” http//www.cem.va.gov/histhome.htm; Holt (1992), pp. 1-14, 471-482.

The Text of the Inscription on the Military Tombstone Worldwide 

 103

details of the uniform inscription the war in which the soldier had fallen – in other words the First World War or the Second World War – as well as his date of birth. At the start of the 50s the Korean War was added to the uniform inscriptions as well as the symbol of the Buddhist faith. Subsequent additions to the uniform inscription were the War in Vietnam, the wars in Somalia, Lebanon, Granada and Panama, the Gulf War and the war in Iraq.⁴

Fig. 26: Typical U.S. military tombstone and the inscription on it. Source: Holt (1992).

In the last 50 years changes have occurred in the rules governing inscriptions in the American military cemeteries, and individual categories of inscriptions were established: 1. The mandatory uniform inscription comprising the name of the fallen, the name of his unit, the name of the military service to which he belonged, his date of birth and date of death; 2. The uniform inscriptions that the family is permitted to add included the following details: rank, the wars in which he participated, the month and date of birth, the month and date of death, the religious symbol (Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Bahai, etc.), orders of merit and medals that he won in the course of his service; 3. A personal inscription that can be added in the future on the reverse side of the tombstone and detailing the names of the 4 Ibid.

104 

 The Uniform Inscription

deceased’s children and spouse; 4. A personal inscription conveying the love felt towards him by his relatives (for example “our beloved father”), his achievements and his titles (doctor, priest, etc.). Permission of the authorities was required for this personal inscription, it was written under the standard inscription (the first category or the first combined with the second), and production costs fell on the family rather than on the state, which was expected to finance the inscription in the other categories. Let us note that the option of adding a personal inscription in the fourth category was used on very rare occasions by the families.⁵ A comparison of the British models and the models in North America with those of Israel informs us that the military tombstone in Israel differs not only in shape but also in the model of the inscription that it carries. The model of the inscription in Israel is uniform, but strikingly absent is the religious symbol and the option for personal expression by the relatives is ruled out (such was the practice until the mid 90s). From the standpoint of the inscription, the model in Israel resembles the inscription model of the German military tombstone, where a personal inscription is prohibited.⁶ Below we will describe and analyze the process in which the uniform inscription text on the military tombstone in the military cemeteries in Israel took shape, a process that lasted six years, and involved a few bodies. Let us note that the entire inscription is located on that part of the tombstone referred to as the “pillow.” We will occasionally use the word “tombstone” instead of “pillow” when addressing the topic of the inscription.

Initial Decisions in the Defense Establishment Regarding the Text of the Uniform Inscription As mentioned, in the first half of 1949 the Division for Commemorating the Soldier determined that the military tombstone would be uniform for all the fallen, both in terms of form and in terms of the written text. Both the Army and Yad Labanim were in agreement on the topic of uniformity.⁷ Regarding the uniform text of the 5 See the detailed American documentation in DMA, folder 1624, file 1314. See also SCA, High Court of Justice file 5843/97, the main contentions on behalf of the petitioners, 6.1.1998; ibid., protocol of the Court Deliberations, 6.4.1997; ibid., protocol of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee’s Subcommittee for Legislation, 1.22.1997, p. 23, from the words of Z. Gross; Holt (1992), pp. 471-482. 6 Mosse (1990), pp. 82-84. 7 AA, file 852/51/367, Y. Dekel to the Chief of Staff, 4.24.1949, including the tender on the establishment of military cemeteries in Tel Aviv and Afula and a standard tombstone for IDF war dead; ibid., file 580/56/377, Y. Dekel to the secretaries of the settlement movements, 7.8.1949; ibid., Y. Dekel to the head of Army Manpower Division, 7.8.1949; ibid., file 88/60/62, Y. Dekel to S. Avigur,

Initial Decisions in the Defense Establishment 

 105

inscription and as opposed to other issues entrusted to the division which had only recently been established,⁸ it decided “to approach the appropriate military institutions for determining the text and contents that should be written on the [permanent] tombstone of every soldier.”⁹ In practice this application was referred to the current Chief of Staff Yaakov Dori, and he decided in the first half of 1949 that the inscription would comprise the IDF symbol, the personal serial number of the soldier, the name of his parents, place of birth, the Hebrew and secular date of birth, the Hebrew and secular date of his immigration to Israel, the place where he fell and the Hebrew and secular dates on which he fell. Let it be emphasized that the inscription of the secular dates was already in practice on a few of the temporary tombstones that were placed on the graves of the fallen.¹⁰ The chief of staff selected one of the printed texts presented to him as an example.¹¹ As opposed to accepted practice in the British and American military cemeteries, where the symbol of any religion to which the deceased was affiliated, such as the cross for Christians and the Star of David for Jews,¹² was the first thing to be inscribed and then the symbols of the units were added, in Israel the chief of staff determined that the only symbol that would be inscribed would be the symbol of the IDF.¹³ The symbol was already inscribed on the temporary tombstones. Although in other fora that subsequently discussed the issue of the inscription, there were differing opinions regarding the inscription, no reservations whatsoever were expressed about inscribing the IDF symbol. It would appear that the unanimity regarding inscribing the IDF symbol stemmed from the following reasons: The Jewish religion has no accepted religious symbol; controversies could arise among various sectors on determining 5.3.1950; ibid., file 580/56/58, D. Ben-Gurion to Y. Dekel, 6.29.1949, including budgetary proposals of the Division for Commemorating the Soldier. 8 On these positions see AA, file 580/56/58, memorandum on the work plan and the roles of the Division for Commemorating the Soldier that were formulated by A.Z. Eshkoli. 9 AA, file 580/56/377, memorandum of the meeting of the Judges’ committee on the tender (above, footnote 7), 3.7.1949. 10 AA, file 580/56/378, Y. Dekel to S. Avigur, 12.7.1949, including sample inscriptions for the tombstones and the letter of the head of the chief of staff’s office to Y. Dekel, 12.14.1949; CZA, file A116/166, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 7.16.1952. One should assume that the chief of staff included in his text the notation of rank although this matter did not appear in the sample that was disseminated. Compare with AA, file 90/72/156, H. Ben David to Y. Dekel, 3.8.1953. 11 AA, file 580/56/377, the Division for Commemorating the Soldier to the chief of staff, 6.29.1949, including a sample of the inscription. 12 See in the tombstones in British military cemeteries, for example on Mount Scopus, or American military cemeteries, for example at Arlington. 13 AA, file 849/73/150, Y. Dekel to the legal advisor of the Defense Ministry, 6.12.1953, regarding the tombstones on the graves of the soldiers who are not Jewish.

106 

 The Uniform Inscription

a Jewish religious symbol; the IDF symbol already incorporated the contours of the Star of David; the IDF symbol was a clear national expression and conveyed national unity. Nevertheless, already in the early 50s the legal problem of “protecting rights to the symbol” arose; in other words, how was one to prevent average citizens from engraving on the tombstones of their beloved in civilian cemeteries the IDF symbol? Indeed, “there were cases where they inscribed the IDF symbol on tombstones that we did not erect.” Likewise the question arose how one could prevent citizens from engraving the IDF symbol on the graves of civilians who by chance were buried in military cemeteries, for example the victims of the Egyptian bombing of Tel Aviv who were buried in military cemeteries although they did not fall in the line of military service. It quickly emerged that the topic had been left wide open, and it could be remedied only in the framework of the law protecting the Army’s flag and its symbols.¹⁴ The chief of staff did decide on the uniform text of the engraving, but he left a number of issues open that required a response: “Would the military rank of the fallen be noted on the tombstone… what would be the designation on the tombstones of commanders and privates who fell before the establishment of the Army… what would be written on the tombstones of the fallen… who perished in the line of duty on a mission for the Army…” and sundry other questions.¹⁵ Furthermore, in the Division for Commemorating the Soldier in particular and the Defense Ministry in general, they were not totally satisfied with the text decided upon by the chief of staff, but it was incumbent to finalize the issue because the division wanted to go ahead with arranging permanent tombstones in the military cemeteries as soon as possible. And therefore a special committee was established in the Defense Ministry and at the close of 1949 it decided on the final text for the uniform inscription that would be engraved on the tombstones. This text resembled the text decided upon by the chief of staff and incorporated the following identifying details of the soldier: his name, his personal serial number, his rank, the names of his parents, place of their birth and the Hebrew and secular date of birth, the place from which he immigrated, the Hebrew and secular dates of immigration, the Hebrew and secular dates of death and the circumstances of his death (for example “in the battle for Jerusalem”) that could express the role that the fallen soldier had played in obtaining the general objective for which he gave his life. Since we are dealing with the burial of those who fell in the battles of 14 AA, file 220/70/212, Y. Dekel to the legal advisor of the Defense Ministry, 11.16.1951 – source of the citation; ibid., A. Kadmoni to Y. Dekel, 11.30.1951. See also ibid., M. Necht to Y. Dekel, 4.12.1951; ibid., file 849/73/150, the legal advisor of the Defense Ministry to Y. Dekel, 7.29.1953. It is not clear if the issue was resolved from a legal standpoint. 15 AA, file 580/56/377, the Division for Commemorating the Soldier to the chief of staff, 6.29.1949.

Initial Decisions in the Defense Establishment 

 107

the War of Independence the future possibility that a soldier would die in circumstances other than battle was not discussed at all. The issue of the circumstances was determined by the prevailing reality, in other words death in battle. Below is the text suggested by the committee.¹⁶ With regards to noting the rank it was decided that the dead from the War of Independence would not be awarded ranks posthumously and that the rank as described on the tombstone would be the one inscribed on the temporary marker.¹⁷ Sergeant Arnon Yaakov the son of Shmuel and Aliza 39393 born in Poland on 8 Av 5688 13.7.1928 immigrated to Israel from Germany Tishrei 5707 October 1946 Fell on 5 Iyyar 5708 in the battle for Jerusalem.

The text as decided upon by the committee proved unacceptable both to Dekel and to others in the defense establishment. They believed that the formula was too long and clumsy. What seemed to bother them was the proliferation of details that actually emphasized heterogeneity, and could mar the principle of uniformity and equality and the message conveyed by this principle, in other words the unity of purpose on whose behalf the soldiers fell (that will be expanded upon below). Therefore Dekel summed up as follows: “In my opinion we should forgo place of birth, and we should only write the place from which he immigrated to Israel, likewise one should forgo the day of his immigration to Israel, aside from those who immigrated to Israel last year. In my opinion this will suffice to demonstrate the ingathering of the exiles during the War of Independence.” Likewise Dekel requested that the dates inscribed on the tombstone should be exclusively Hebrew dates,¹⁸ and not purely for the reason of brevity in the inscription, but first and foremost to preserve in the military cemeteries – and likewise in everything connected with burial, memory and commemoration – the traditional Jewish customs. Indeed the greatest contemporary Jewish religious jurists totally prohibited noting secular dates on the tombstones.¹⁹ The truth of the matter was 16 See above, footnote 10. From a photograph that was made on 3.2.1950 it emerges that according to the plan of the special committee of the Defense Ministry the date of death was intended to be the Hebrew and secular date. On this see the national photograph website (http://www.gpo. gov.il), photograph 86071. 17 AA, file 90/72/156, the head of Army Manpower Division – Individuals to Y. Dekel, 3.8.1953. 18 See above, footnote 10. 19 See for example the words of Rabbi Eliezer Waldinberg (one of the most noted Jewish religious jurists of the 20th century) in his book Responsa Tzitz Eliezer (1984-1985), part VIII, paragraph 8, emphasizing, following Maharam Schick, “That it is a compound transgression [to note the secular date on the tombstone]… and he who employs their [the secular] numerology appears

108 

 The Uniform Inscription

that already at the time the program to establish the Division for Commemorating the Soldier at the close of 1948 was formulated it was emphasized that “the division will plan programs and will regulate the cemeteries… in accordance with traditional Jewish customs, this activity comprises burial, a tombstone on the grave of each fallen soldier and a general memorial stone in each cemetery.”²⁰ Dekel himself was sensitive about preserving Jewish customs in everything concerned with military cemeteries in particular and with commemoration in general,²¹ and in my humble opinion to be committing the transgression, ‘And you shall not recall any other gods’ name’… as Maharam Schick forbade recalling the date of the Gentiles on the tombstone because of the prohibition ‘you shall not recall.’” And in part IX, paragraph 14 the Tzitz Eliezer further emphasized that “one should know that by engraving on the tombstone and in the house of the living [the cemetery], the issue of whether to mention the dates of the nations assumes even greater seriousness, for there it is no longer a concern of jealousy or hatred or competition or any commercial purposes, etc., in order to justify recalling them. And there on the threshold of the world to come a more severe Jewish obligation is imposed to unite all the Jewish grave dwellers in the linguistic unity of the holy tongue and to the Jewish date that attests that the world is renewed... and therefore the custom is precisely to raise a tombstone that is written and engraved in the holy tongue that is the language in which the world was created and this is the tongue that assembles the entire Jewish people into a single people and this distinguishes us and therefore it is fitting that this language should be written and uttered in a holy place… and he who writes or engraves the memory of the dead on the tombstone in other languages debases the deceased and attests that he did not belong to the world of clarity, the world of holiness and truth and his affairs in their entirety only pertained to the world of mendacity… And furthermore since the tombstone is permanent and always obvious for reading to the eyes of all sorts of people this therefore borders on disgracing the holy name.” Nevertheless it is worthwhile to note that this decision was tied to the growth of the Reform Jewish current, therefore if the mention of the secular date is motivated by a desire to allow the public to learn the date of death via the more familiar and widespread secular date, and this is not intended as a challenge to Orthodox Judaism, there will be enough contemporary jurists who will permit this – thus according to an oral interview with Rabbi S. Rappaport, 6.30.2003. 20 See above, footnote 8. 21 See for example AA, file 580/56/378, Y. Dekel to S. Avigur, 12.7.1949. Regarding Y. Dekel’s concern for faucets for washing the hands in the cemeteries “according to Jewish custom” see AA, file 90/72/156, Y. Dekel to the director general of the Defense Ministry, 2.2.1953. On his initiative to write a Torah scroll in memory of the fallen see ibid., Y. Dekel to Y. Cohen, 5.10.1953. See also ibid., his concern for planning the cemetery on Mount Herzl in a manner that would allow Kohanim access to every plot (although the question arises as to why the department did not concern itself with providing this Jewish religious solution in all the military cemeteries). See also AA, file 849/73/150, Y. Dekel to the legal advisor of the Defense Ministry, 3.15.1954, the proposal by Y. Dekel regarding the religious-traditional content that the military memorial should comprise; ibid., file 90/72/157, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 6.27.1954; ibid., file 90/72/39, the head of the Construction and Economic Branch to the director general of the Defense Ministry, 11.21.1954, paragraph 6. See also SIA, file C 5436/71, a statement by Y. Dekel at the conclave of Yad Labanim, 9.15.1954, pp. 65-70.

Initial Decisions in the Defense Establishment 

 109

the same can be said for the defense establishment²² and the Public Council for Commemorating the Soldier whose members included Rabbi Abraham Haim Shaag – a member of the Mizrahi movement and a Knesset member on its behalf – who also headed the council between the years 1952-1958.²³ According to the proposal by Dekel the text of the inscription should therefore include the name of the soldier, rank, serial number, names of the parents, Hebrew birthday, the country from which he immigrated, the Hebrew date of death and the circumstances of death.²⁴ In the frame below we have an example of the inscription text proposed by Dekel.²⁵ This proposal was endorsed by the Chief of Staff, but the head of the information department in the Defense Ministry suggested noting the soldier’s country of birth instead of the country from which he immigrated.²⁶ Dekel had another suggestion regarding the circumstances of death since according to the records “in scores of cases the place where the soldier fell is recorded as an Arab village such as Taiba or Tira… which doesn’t mean anything regarding the ultimate objective of the place of death… it would appear to me that there is a need and option to divide the country into 15-20 areas of operation and determine that all soldiers who fell on the road to Jerusalem beginning with Lod, Ramle or Hulda – fell on behalf of opening the way to Jerusalem; all those who fell in the upper Galilee – fell on behalf of expanding the country’s borders, etc.”²⁷ Sergeant Arnon Yaakov son of Shmuel and Aliza 39393 born on 8 Av 5688 immigrated to Israel from Germany fell on 5 Iyyar 5708 in the battle for Jerusalem

22 AA, file 1551/51/199, A. Golad to K. Kitt, August 1949; ibid., file 849/73/150, S. Rosen to M. Necht, 4.14.1955; ibid., the legal advisor of the Defense Ministry to the Director of the Division for Commemorating the Soldier, 4.3.1954. 23 See for example CZA, file A116/166, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 7.16.1952, where Y. Ben-Zvi emphasizes that setting the Hebrew date stemmed from a desire “to preserve the widespread tradition shared by all corners of the Jewish people throughout the world.” See also AA, file 90/72/157, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 6.29.1954, regarding the decision of the council that memorial ceremonies in the military cemeteries should bear a religious character. See also the letter from S. Rosen (above, footnote 22). Rabbi Shaag was the founder and a leading activist in the Vaad Hakehila Burial Society. On this topic see Frumkin (1955), p. 430. 24 See above, footnote 10. 25 Ibid. 26 AA, file 580/56/378, Y. Ziv-Av to S. Avigur, 12.7.1949. 27 See above, footnote 10.

110 

 The Uniform Inscription

The Issue of the Inscription in the Legislative Process of “The Law of Military Cemeteries” (1949-1950) A few weeks after Dekel had formulated his recommendation regarding the uniform texts on the tombstone and after it was clear to everyone that there would be uniform tombstones and a uniform inscription upon them, the proposal for the Law of Military Cemeteries was tabled in the Knesset at the end of 1949. This legislative proposal was drafted by Dekel himself,²⁸ and was intended to regulate all topics of soldiers’ burial and the military cemeteries. The timing for presenting the proposal was tied to the fallen from the War of Independence and the desire to give a legal stamp to the existing policy of the Army and the Defense Ministry on these matters: transferring the dead to permanent military cemeteries, shaping the cemeteries, uniformity of tombstones, preventing the erection of tombstones at private initiative, etc.²⁹ Nevertheless the directives of the law were to address all issues pertaining henceforth to the military cemeteries and military burial, without precise reference to the dead of the War of Independence. On the issue of the tombstone paragraph 6 to the legislative proposal stipulated the following: “No person will erect a tombstone on a military grave or in the military cemetery unless he has received approval from an authorized officer [the head of the Division for Commemorating the Soldier], and in accordance with the conditions of the permit. A person transgressing against this paragraph… is liable to imprisonment of up to three months or a fine of 75 lire or both penalties together.” The accompanying explanation to this paragraph said: “With a view to preserving the appearance of the military cemeteries, the proposed legislation obligates any person who wants to establish a tombstone on the grave of a soldier, to receive prior approval from an ‘authorized officer.’”³⁰ The legislative proposal does not deal with the issue of the inscription on the tombstones. One could assume that the proposal left this matter for the ordinances that the defense minister was authorized to promulgate in order to implement the law. However, although there are clear allusions in the above mentioned paragraph and in the explanatory comments about the desire to preserve the uniformity of tombstones in the military cemeteries, Dekel was not content with the text of paragraph 6 of the legislative proposal that like other paragraphs in the proposal was formulated by the Justice Ministry. Dekel sought to have the law emphasize the matter of uniformity and equality by adding two paragraphs: The 28 AA, file 580/56/374, Y. Dekel to A. Syrkin, 10.31.1949. 29 AA, file 580/56/377, Y. Dekel to the secretariats of the settlement movements, 7.8.1949; Knesset Protocols, 3.20.1950, p. 1059 and onwards. 30 Official Documents: Legislative Proposals, no. 30, 12.26.1949, pp. 67-69.

The Issue of the Inscription in the Legislative Process 

 111

first would forbid engraving or drawing the IDF symbol on a tombstone without a permit issued by an authorized officer; the second prohibited adding to the content written on the tombstone on a military grave or located in the military cemetery – or detracting from what was written – unless a permit had been issued by an authorized officer. The Justice Ministry, though, was not enthusiastic about introducing these amendments into the legislative proposal. It believed that the issue of the symbol and the prohibition of engraving it without a permit belonged to a law on the symbol. For reasons that are not clear the Justice Ministry also opposed stipulating in the legislative proposal a prohibition on changing the inscription on the tombstones, and it recommended that Dekel raise the issue during the deliberation on the law in the appropriate Knesset committee, after it had passed its first reading.³¹ Ten Knesset members, including Justice Minister Pinhas Rosen from the Progressive Party, participated in the debate that took place in March 1950 on the legislative proposal during the first reading. Only two Knesset members – Aharon Zisling from MAPAM and the Justice Minister – mentioned the issue of the tombstones and the inscription on them. Zisling and Rosen presented two opposing outlooks: The first supported the uniformity of the tombstones and the inscription upon them (Rosen), and the second the opposing desire to permit also a personal unique expression on the tombstones (Zisling). These two opposing views, which were in evidence already in 1950, continued to accompany the issue of the tombstones and the inscription upon them for decades, until the present day. The most interesting detail in the dispute between Zisling and Rosen is the fact that Zisling, a kibbutz member and avowed socialist who set great store by the values of equality, demanded providing expression for the personal and unique, whereas Rosen, whose social outlook was more liberal, insisted on the principle of uniformity and equality. Due to the importance of the positions expressed by the two persons we will cite their statements on the Knesset rostrum in full and verbatim. And this is what Zisling emphasized: They’ve spoken here about the uniform appearance, and paragraph 6 states: no person will erect a tombstone on the military grave. I must say that like many others I am moved by the special intimate mark that they award to the grave of the fallen person, whether it takes the form of a verse from one of his utterances, one of his sayings or a passage from what he said or wrote, or any other form. The special image of a person who fell together with his comrades in a single battle is not expunged. The independent image need not be blurred by the fact that he fought and fell in the company of other fighters. It is his life and death the 31 AA, file 849/73/150, Y. Dekel to Y. Nusilevich, 1.1.1950; ibid., Y. Nusilevich to H. Wilkenfeld, 1.9.1950; ibid., Y. Nusilevich to Y. Dekel, 1.9.1950.

112 

 The Uniform Inscription

man brought to the fore that he possessed. And to the extent that this can be commemorated then it ought to be done. This should not necessarily blur what’s common. It is proper that the law should impose a symbol, a permanent uniform mark for every defender and fighter who fell in battle, and this mark should be affixed to every tombstone, whatever it may be, and wherever it is erected, according to the spirit of the place and according to the understanding of the parents, the wife, children and similar. We can add some things that are permanent and equal for everyone, as a general expression for the totality of defenders and fighters. On the other hand one should permit something individual even in the centralized military cemetery. I don’t recommend multiplying the military cemeteries, but I understand that in every military cemetery there will be a memorial stone of a single shape. But a fixed part of it has to be earmarked for describing what the people who were closest to the fallen soldier want to add or a plaque of the equivalent size. This content can be subject to review, to avoid an injurious expression. Likewise the Army can add in this spot a unique expression for each of the fallen, even if he has no relatives, as determined. All this can be done without harming or detracting from what’s common between the soldiers, but one should combine an expression of the general public with an expression by the person who was closest. If we were to formulate the law with this approach, it is clear that the various proposals, my proposals or the proposals to come later, can realize the desire expressed here: a commemorative and reverent tombstone conveying the public character while incorporating the unique wishes of the relatives in expressing what is special about the memory of the person who fell and how he fell in battle.³²

Zisling’s statement corresponded to the fundamental comments that he made previously regarding the Law of Military Cemeteries, and the spirit that emerges from them inspired the legislator when after many years he ratified the “Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty.” And this is what he had to say: “The laws tabled before us are laws pertaining to the realm of concern for life and the realm of human feelings. In the realm of human feelings we are very limited in our capability of judgment and generalization… one should award special privilege to the kinsmen of the dead to exhaust their feelings as they so wish, as they understand, as they feel, each person in his own way. One should not excessively impose limiting rules, and one should not see an omnibus solution by injunctions, orders, laws and commandments.”³³ It should come as no surprise that many years after that discussion in the first reading of the Law of Military Cemeteries, Justice Aharon Barak, in delivering his opinion on the possibility of expressing the unique and personal aspect in the inscription on the tombstones, resorted both to the Basic Law and to the comments by Zisling.³⁴ It would appear that Justice Minister Rosen was surprised by Zisling’s position, because when the law was first presented he did not refer at all to the issue of 32 All citations are from the Knesset Protocols (above, footnote 29). 33 Knesset Protocols (above, footnote 29), pp. 1067-1068. 34 SCA, High Court of Justice file 5688/92, from a decision by Justice A. Barak, paragraph 9.

The Issue of the Inscription in the Legislative Process 

 113

the tombstone and the inscription on it. Now, in summing up for the first reading, he devoted an appreciable portion of his address to express his most vigorous opposition to Zisling’s position and in the process he provided an explanation both to the element of the uniform tombstones as well as the element of equality. And this is what he had to say: The second question that arose is a question of the appearance of the military cemeteries; and this question must also be clarified in committee. It seems to me that the military cemeteries must give expression to the idea, that all those who fell in the war were partners to a single objective – and this imposes a certain degree of uniformity. I have yet to see a military cemetery where the shape of the tombstones was variegated. Military cemeteries are based on the uniform idea, that all devoted and gave their lives to one common objective. And if there is any need at all to add an individual twist to the tombstones, according to the proposal of Knesset Member Zisling, then in any case, the uniformity must be the prominent and decisive form. And don’t forget that many people buried here have no families in Israel. I don’t know if particularly in these cemeteries one may discriminate between fallen soldiers whose families care for them and soldiers who arrived here as volunteers and there is no one to care for them. This in my opinion is an important question; we are talking about military cemeteries and not about cemeteries for fighters and defenders, according to the proposal of Knesset Member Zisling. The military aspect of the cemeteries makes a uniform appearance incumbent and it must be preeminent over any special variant, should it be permitted…³⁵

One can assume that the position of the Justice Ministry was partially influenced by the vigorous position of the Yad Labanim center that represented the bereaved families. The latter took pains to explain the reason behind the demand for uniformity by stating “the aspiration of the defenders and fighters was uniform, when they gave their lives to defend the nation and establish the state, the love of truth prevailed among them and a deep love of Israel bound them together… The bereaved families most definitely want to keep faith with the spirit of their beloved ones who fell and this obligates them to ensure with exacting punctiliousness that the spirit of uniformity that prevailed among the sons will hover over the places where they found their eternal rest: the military cemeteries; a uniform style totally and everywhere, in the tombstones, seeding and planting, in every thing, without discrimination or deviation.”³⁶ The preparation of the law for the second and third reading was entrusted to the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee. Most committee members accepted the position of the Army regarding the uniformity of the tombstones and they believed that in specifying the soldiers’ tombstones’ uniformity they could not 35 Knesset Protocols (above, footnote 29), pp. 1069-1070. 36 CZA, file A116/166, from a memorandum by the Yad Labanim center, 12.26.1951.

114 

 The Uniform Inscription

content themselves with a vague legal directive, as proposed in the draft legislation.³⁷ The Knesset members insisted that the definition of uniformity must find expression in a clear legal directive to the effect that on every military grave a military tombstone should be erected at the State’s expense – save for the cases of a military grave in a civilian cemetery, where the relative of the deceased would be allowed to erect a different tombstone.³⁸ Nonetheless, the committee sought to avoid involving an actual definition of a military tombstone in the text of the law. With regards to the shape and size of the tombstone and the text of the inscription – all these, it believed, should be entrusted to the determination of the duly authorized officer.³⁹ During the course of deliberations on this issue some committee members expressed their opinion regarding the tombstones, including the issue of uniformity for the tombstones and the inscriptions they bore. Thus Knesset Member Haim Ben Asher emphasized that he supported erecting a uniform military tombstone even in a civilian cemetery.⁴⁰ Benyamin Mintz believed that “there has to be [in the primary legislation] a definition of what precisely constitutes a military tombstone.”⁴¹ Yosef Sapir was even more insistent and argued that one should prevent in primary legislation any possibility that “the military cemeteries should be turned into something that we do not desire. I’m certain that anybody who has the financial ability will make a tombstone that he can afford.”⁴² Yizhar Harari also opined that “one should clearly legislate that any person, aside from members of the security forces in charge of the matter, is prohibited from erecting a tombstone on a military grave in a military cemetery…⁴³ There could arise a case where a noted author or a famous musician who happened to be killed while he was a month in the reserves and his relatives and fellow artists would seek to erect a tombstone for him recalling his contribution to the arts. According to this law it will be necessary to bury him in the old cemetery and they will erect a

37 SIA, protocols of the meetings of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, protocol of 5.29.1950, p. 13. 38 Ibid., pp. 13-14; ibid., protocol of the meeting of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, 6.5.1950, pp. 1-2. See also Official Documents: The Statute Book, no. 55, 8.1.1950, p. 259, paragraph 5 (a) to the Law of Military Cemeteries, 5710-1950. 39 Protocol of the meeting of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, 6.5.1950 (above, footnote 38). See also Official Documents: The Statute Book (above, footnote 38), p. 259, paragraph 5 (b). 40 Protocol of the meeting of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, 5.29.1950 (above, footnote 37), p. 10. 41 Ibid., p. 13. 42 Ibid. 43 Ibid., p. 14.

The Issue of the Inscription in the Legislative Process 

 115

uniform soldier’s tombstone for him.”⁴⁴ In contradistinction Yaakov Greenberg expressed a contrary view that resembled what Zisling had argued in the plenum. He voiced the following: “The Army will erect in the military cemeteries a uniform tombstone but the option of inscribing on it a dedication [by the relatives] of two to three lines must remain; the freedom of allowing someone to erect a special tombstone should be left in the hands of the defense minister or the Chief of Staff… I propose establishing that there should be room on the tombstone for one or two lines and that the family could write some verse.”⁴⁵ As we shall see below, in the latter half of the 90s the law was amended in the spirit of Greenberg’s position, but by then nobody knew any longer that Greenberg as well as Zisling enjoyed the copyright to the idea. During the sessions of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee a distinguished delegation of bereaved parents appeared before the committee. The parents presented an almost uniform position on the general treatment of the deceased and the families, and their essential point was “there should not be any discrimination.”⁴⁶ The demand for uniformity on the issue of the tombstones flowed as a consequence, and although there was no direct reference to the issue of the inscription, there can be no doubt that they intended this as well. And this is how Zeev Plotnitzky, a parent whose son fell at the beginning of the War of Independence, put it: “Of course there has to be a uniform shape of tombstone and one should not allow rich parents to erect grandiose tombstones on their children’s graves, while in contradistinction no sign would mark the grave of others. Why should we not promulgate a law, specifying that if a soldier has fallen we make sure of a uniform shape for the grave and tombstone, without there being any option for adding adornments.”⁴⁷ Yehiel Schulkes added: “One should appoint a committee that will meet with an engineer and discuss the shape and arrangement of the cemetery. This should be something predetermined for the entire country, and the tombstones also should be uniform. There should not arise a situation where a father of means should erect the Tower of Babel on his son’s grave while someone who is bereft of means won’t have any mark on his son’s grave. The state should establish a uniform tombstone for all the fallen and should also plan the cemeteries where all those who fell on behalf of liberating the homeland are buried. This is my opinion and I believe that this is also the opinion of my comrades.”⁴⁸ One parent, Yitzhak Persich, subsequently 44 Ibid., p. 8. 45 Ibid., pp. 13-14. 46 Ibid., protocol of 5.23.1950, p. 12, from the statement by M. Bdolach. 47 Ibid., p. 12. 48 Ibid., p. 10.

116 

 The Uniform Inscription

a member of the Public Council for Commemorating the Soldier, explained: “Our approach is that there should be a uniform tombstone and the tombstone should have a special shape. I cannot propose the exact formula here, but the inclination must be to have a uniform tombstone, and one should not allow parents of means to establish a luxurious tombstone on their son’s grave. In my opinion he [the parent] by this action does not glorify the memory of his son, but actually profanes it, and such cases have already occurred.”⁴⁹ Persich directed his statement to his comrade Avraham Shvat, he too a bereaved parent, who had appeared before the committee and proposed not to destroy the tombstones that the parents had already erected before the law was promulgated. This proposal was opposed to the actual Army policy of rejecting requests by the parents to establish tombstones and destroying tombstones erected by the parents even in cases where the Army had not yet managed to erect military tombstones in their stead.⁵⁰ In general, already during the 50s the bereaved parents emphasized the requirement of uniformity and equality in everything connected with commemorating the fallen. In this manner they opposed having communities and institutions named for a specific person among the fallen, or emphasizing the role of one who had fallen in the War of Independence at the expense of others. At the annual conference of the Yad Labanim Organization that took place in September 1954 one of the parents for example said the following: “I would like to refrain from bitter expressions. However after due deliberation one can still decide that there is something insulting, and even embarrassing, if one attempts to extract, discriminate and emphasize one person from a group or unit that was dispatched on a mission, fought together and fell together – to make one into a saint and immortalize him. This is disgraceful. There’s not even testimony that this person ended his life in that action with a lesser or greater degree of heroism than his comrades. It is premature to say that these people who are rushing to do the same thing have been stricken with blindness… it is hard to establish if this is commemoration or degradation.”⁵¹ Even harsher were the words by the bereaved father, Moshe Cohen: We have received a letter here from bereaved parents, who read an item in the newspaper that the government and the Jewish Agency are about to erect a youth hostel in Sodom named after… – the son of Mr…. we all know that this wasn’t an isolated case. He didn’t fall alone. He fell together with 15 other sons and all of them have the same rights as this son. 49 Ibid., p. 6. 50 Ibid., p. 5. 51 SIA, file C 5436/71, protocol of the Yad Labanim meeting, 9.15.1954, p. 42, from the statement by D. Giladi.

The Issue of the Inscription in the Legislative Process 

 117

And the parents ask: why did the government and Jewish Agency see fit to discriminate in favor of this son as opposed to the other sons, and distinguish him and name the house in Sodom after him? During the entire course of this conclave various speakers and friends emphasized, and again reemphasized, the demand not to discriminate between two types of blood, that they should not elevate the one over the other. We therefore demand from this conclave that while we cannot exert influence, and command the government and the Jewish Agency, maybe we can still influence our parents. If the government commits discrimination – the matter is both painful and sorrowing. But if one of our parents abets this, this is sevenfold more painful. It seems to me that many – perhaps all of you – agree with me. And we demand that this assemblage should adopt a decision: either to refrain from naming this house after – or to name it after the 16 who fell on the road to Atarot. I am merely serving as a spokesman for one of the parents who was not a delegate to this gathering, and cannot speak. I don’t want to read his letter to you, members of the committee are familiar with it, but I demand adopting this decision.

Indeed, at Cohen’s behest and the behest of many others the conclave adopted the decision that it “requires the new center to ascertain that commemorative projects, such as youth hostels, monuments and the like that are being established by public bodies, should not be named after one of the fallen who fell as a group of dead but after the operations or the groups.”⁵² At the end of July 1950 the Knesset Plenum passed the second and third reading of the Law of Military Cemeteries. Similar to the other clauses formulated by the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, the plenum also ratified the paragraph formulated by the committee regarding the tombstones (and which did not appear in the original legislative proposal), namely paragraph 5 to the law, as follows: “(a) A military tombstone at the expense of the state will be erected on each military grave. However a certified officer may allow the relative of the deceased soldier who was brought for burial in a civilian cemetery to erect a different tombstone over his grave. (b) The shape and size of the military tombstone will be determined by a delegated officer.”⁵³ The law and the legislative procedures did not therefore touch upon the inscription on the tombstones. While this may appear most strange, the rules of the inscription were determined only in 1997, in the framework of ordinances instituted by the defense minister. These secured the rules that had been previously set by the defense establishment – mainly the rules established by the Public Council for Commemorating the Soldier, and the rulings made by the High Court of Justice.⁵⁴ The primary legisla52 Ibid., p. 57, from a statement by M. Cohen. 53 Official Documents: The Statute Book (above, footnotes 38, 39). 54 See in detail, p. 238. See also DMA, folder 53451, file 6, letter from a senior deputy to the legal advisor of the Defense Ministry for rehabilitation matters to the deputy director general and assistant to the defense minister, 8.12.1993.

118 

 The Uniform Inscription

tive process from the early 50s likewise did not discuss the vigorous demands by Dekel to prohibit by law the option of inscribing the IDF symbols on tombstones without going through the Division for Commemorating the Soldier. Similarly his demands to establish by law a prohibition barring a person or institution from “amending, adding, or detracting from the written content on the tombstone that had been erected on a soldier’s grave unless he received permission from the duly authorized person” were not put to discussion.⁵⁵ Nevertheless the law prescribed penalties for desecrating a military grave as well as setting or removing a tombstone without a permit.⁵⁶

The Public Council for Commemorating the Soldier Finalizes the Details of the Uniform Inscription in 1951 With the formation of the Public Council for Commemorating the Soldier at the beginning of 1951, Defense Minister David Ben-Gurion entrusted it with “determining the text that will be inscribed on the permanent tombstones for the Israeli Defense Force martyrs.”⁵⁷ For that purpose the Public Council appointed a subcommittee to act on its behalf composed of council members Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, Reuven Mass, Rabbi Avraham Haim Shaag, Yosef Dekel, a representative of the Army and the historian Ben Zion Dinburg (Dinur). Its task was to deliberate on “determining the content of the permanent tombstones for the heroes of the War of Independence,”⁵⁸ in other words to determine the contents of the inscription on the tombstone – something that the law had not resolved. Awaiting the committee were proposals jointly prepared by the Army and the Division for Commemorating the Soldier regarding the text for defining the circumstances of death. The recommendations were formulated on the basis of the circumstances attending the demise of soldiers who had died in the three years since the war (till then they only dealt with one category – “fell in battle”).

55 See above, footnote 31, Y. Dekel’s letter – the source of this quotation, and the other letters in that same footnote. See also AA, file 220/70/212, Y. Dekel to the legal advisor of the Defense Ministry, 3.1.1951. 56 Official Documents: The Statute Book (above, footnote 38), p. 260, paragraph 10. The law was amended in 1994, and the punishment for setting a tombstone or removing it without permission was doubled – from three months to six months imprisonment. On this see Official Documents: The Statute Book, no. 1470, 6.30.1994, p. 236. 57 AA, file 702/60/1511, Y. Dekel to Y. Rosen, 2.13.1951. 58 CZA, file A116/166, protocol of the Council’s Subcommittee for determining the content of the permanent tombstones, 2.28.1951.

The Public Council for Commemorating the Soldier Finalizes the Details 

 119

The recommendations that they prepared together with the Army and the Division for Commemorating the Soldier proposed dividing the circumstances of death into three categories: the first, “‘fell in battle’ – to denote someone who fell in direct combat with the enemy as well as other persons killed who fell in the vicinity of the battle as a result of stepping on a mine, a traffic accident or weapons accident caused by the special circumstances that prevailed in the battle zone. [The second], ‘fell in the line of duty’ – to denote a slain person who didn’t fall in circumstances of battle, but while fulfilling a duty, as a result of a directive from his commander, for example: a weapons accident during training, a traffic accident while on the way to a furlough. [Third], ‘died during his service in the IDF’ – to denote cases of death such as: death as a result of illness, death as a result of suicide, etc.”⁵⁹ The decision not to distinguish between natural death and death as a result of suicide was prompted by a desire to avoid “increasing the sorrow of the bereaved parents whose children had committed suicide which in any case is unbearable as well as to avoid publicizing the suicide case.”⁶⁰ Let us note that originally the current chief of staff, Yaakov Dori, intended to distinguish between suicides and those who died a natural death in a manner that for the suicide there would be no category for denoting the circumstances of his death.⁶¹ At the end of February 1951 the special committee for the matter of the inscription on the tombstones publicized its decisions. Reuven Mass, who subsequently would head the council, reported on the deliberations that preceded the decisions of the committee. His report is informative about the intensity of the interests and the unique demands that the committee rebuffed when it established the uniform text. And this is what Mass reported: The tombstones commission was entrusted with working out a uniform text for the tombstones. Here it emerged that the matter was not as simple as it appears at first glance. Sundry demands were lodged by parents and organizations regarding the text. For example, the IZL and Lehi organizations demanded the symbol of the organization and emphasizing the affiliation of the fallen to their organization and the rank that he occupied in the organization, such as a unit commander or a district commander, etc. A similar demand came from the Palmach. Likewise, there were parents who sought to inscribe all the degrees of the fallen soldier. There were those who demanded a religious inscription to mention that the fallen was God-fearing or had other traits. There were those who demanded that all those who had fallen prior to the establishment of the state and formation of the regular army 59 Ibid., Y. Rosen to the Division for Commemorating the Soldier, 2.11.1951, on “Defining the Circumstances for Various Types of Death.” And compare with AA, file 1967/93/180, memorandum of the director of the Division for Commemorating the Soldier, M. Orbach, addressed to the head of the Manpower branch in the Defense Ministry, 6.15.1961. 60 See the memorandum by M. Orbach (above, footnote 59). 61 Ibid.

120 

 The Uniform Inscription

should not receive a military rank and number. However all members of the committee were in accord that only a uniform tombstone with a uniform text could be considered, and the representative of the Army categorically opposed other symbols aside from the IDF symbol and emphasized that it was not possible that on a tombstone in the military cemetery one should not write the rank and serial number of the dead soldier. All those who fell prior to the existence of the regular army will also receive numbers and ranks…⁶²

In any event the committee endorsed the three categories of dying that the joint committee of the Army and the Division for Commemorating the Soldier had established,⁶³ but altered the formula somewhat: instead of “fell in the line of duty” it decided on “fell while fulfilling his duty” and instead of “died during his service in the IDF” it decided upon “died during military service.” Following animated discussions that dealt with technical details such as the size of the tombstone, the size of the letters, the number of lines, etc., the committee also established the other details of the inscription as follows: At the upper right edge of the tombstone the IDF symbol will be engraved. At the same time it was clear in all the defense establishment frameworks that only soldiers would be buried in military cemeteries, and therefore it was emphasized that the IDF symbol would be the one exclusive symbol engraved on the tombstone. Under the symbol the personal serial number and rank would be engraved. Regarding the name of the fallen soldier it was determined that at first his personal name would be engraved, and if the parents would demand writing also his nickname it would be written in parentheses. If the fallen soldier had a foreign name it would be entered in parentheses, after the Hebrew name. After the personal name the family name would be engraved. If the parents requested adding his civilian degree, such as rabbi, professor, dr., architect, etc., the degree would be entered after the family name. Afterwards they would write the names of the parents, with the mother’s name preceding the father’s. In the case that the father was a Kohen and the parents would so request, they would add the word “HaKohen.”⁶⁴ The dates engraved on 62 RMA, report by R. Mass to the Yad Labanim committee after the third meeting of the Public Council, 1951. 63 See above, footnote 59. 64 Although Jewish religious law does not prohibit engraving the name of the mother on the tombstone, it is customary to enter the name of the father alone. For that reason it is not clear what motivated the committee, whose membership also included Rabbi Shaag, to determine that the mother’s name too would be engraved on the tombstone. See also Tucazinsky (1960), part II, pp. 203-206. It is possible that this was a demand on the part of the other committee members. Since this demand did not contravene Jewish religious law and there was also no proof that it was unprecedented to write the name of the mother on Jewish civilian tombstones, the rabbi did not express opposition. Apparently the committee did not deal at all with the option of entering the name of the spouse and the name of the offspring of the fallen on the tombstone.

The Public Council for Commemorating the Soldier Finalizes the Details 

 121

the tombstone would refer to the year of birth, the year of immigration and the day of death.⁶⁵ All the dates would be entered following the Hebrew calendar, for reasons noted above tied to preserving Jewish tradition.⁶⁶ Pursuant to noting the circumstances of death, as detailed above, the place of death would be entered: “In case he fell in a Jewish community one should enter the community and the name of the region. In case he fell in an Arab community, one should write the name of the region in a general fashion. Only in special circumstances should one enter the name of the Arab community. Mr. Yitzhak Ben-Zvi and Professor Dinburg were entrusted with examining the list of places of death and to note the places that should be mentioned explicitly on the tombstone.” Finally the Hebrew letters ‫( תנצב"ה‬May his soul be bound up in the bond of everlasting life) would be engraved as per the accepted Jewish tradition. A sample of the inscription on the tombstone that exemplifies the aforementioned decisions was added to the protocol.⁶⁷ Let us add that these decisions referred only to the inscription on the tombstones of Jewish fallen. The committee did not devote a separate discussion to the matter of non-Jewish fallen and contented itself with the determination that one should treat them “according to the general principles guiding the other fallen.”⁶⁸ The recommendations of the committee were immediately adopted by the Public Council and by the prime minister and defense minister.⁶⁹ It was emphasized in the council’s decisions from the beginning of March 1951 that “there is one and only one symbol of the Army and it is the IDF symbol; the personal number and the military rank would be engraved slightly below the symbol; the 65 Subsequently, at the close of 1953, the Public Council determined that in the event that the date of demise in the War of Independence was unknown, the date of Memorial Day would be entered, i.e., the fourth of Iyyar 1948. On this see AA, file 849/73/150, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 12.15.1953. 66 CZA, file A116/166, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 7.16.1952, p. 3, where Ben-Zvi said inter alia: “The council took Jewish tradition into consideration [with reference to setting the Hebrew date exclusively] and there was no hidden motivation. They wanted to preserve the widespread tradition among all Jewish communities throughout the world, and here as well the intention was good.” 67 CZA, file A116/166, protocol of the meeting of the Council’s Subcommittee for Determining the Contents of the Permanent Tombstones for the Heroes of the War of Independence, 2.28.1951; ibid., the head of the Branch for Personal Matters in the Army Manpower Division to the Department for Commemorating the Soldier, 2.11.1951. From the example appended, it emerges that Y. Dekel’s recommendation noting the nature of the battle, such as “The War for the Negev,” was adopted. See also AA, file 90/72/156, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 8.5.1953. 68 CZA, protocol of the meeting (above, footnote 67), paragraph 11. 69 CZA, file A116/166, military secretary of the prime minister to the chairman of the Public Council, 4.12.1951.

122 

 The Uniform Inscription

private name and the family name would be written in bold letters, and all the rest in regular uniform letters… and only the Hebrew date would be written.”⁷⁰ The Army also endorsed the decisions, but although it had no authority on the matter it raised objections to engraving the rank under the symbol and asked that the rank be adjoined to the family name – apparently because this was the common notation on military forms. Likewise the Army requested that a vacant space be left on the tombstones to enter the personal number of those fallen soldiers whom the Army had not yet managed to give a personal number, and this provision would prevent a delay in preparing the tombstones. The Army promised the division to provide the numbers as quickly as possible.⁷¹ In response Dekel informed the Army unequivocably that the prerogative for determining the content on the tombstone was entrusted to the Public Council that the defense minister had created, and this body had already formed its position regarding the place for engraving the rank, “and we cannot change this decision.” “Regarding the second paragraph in your letter concerning personal numbers, I would like to direct your attention to the fact that it will prove impossible to do engraving work on the personal number on the stone once it has been erected on the grave. Therefore there is a need for haste in determining the personal numbers in order to avoid creating a new delay in erecting the tombstones whose preparation has in any case been postponed up to now.”⁷² With a view of preventing the possibility that somebody outside the Defense Ministry would place a tombstone and engrave upon it things that were different from the inscription formula that had been approved, Dekel as may be recalled had already requested at the beginning of 1950 the insertion of paragraphs in the Law of Military Cemeteries to the effect that: “No person or institution may write, engrave or render the symbol of the Israel Defense Forces on any tombstone without the receipt of written permission from an officer authorized for this purpose; no person or institution will be entitled to amend, add or detract from the content written on the tombstone that has been erected on the grave of a soldier, unless he has received permission for this from a person so authorized.”⁷³ However the request was turned down by the Defense Ministry and the Justice Ministry after it became clear that there was no legal option for proclaiming that the Army enjoyed exclusivity over the military symbol.⁷⁴ At the beginning of 1951, with the ratification of the inscription in the council and with the intention of 70 RMA, the Public Council’s decisions, 3.7.1951. 71 AA, file 702/60/1511, B. Horin to the Department for Commemorating the Soldier, 3.21.1951. 72 Ibid., Y. Dekel to B. Horin, 4.1.1951. 73 See above, footnote 31. 74 AA, file 220/70/212, M. Necht to Y. Dekel, 4.11.1951, attached is an undated legal appendix.

The Public Council for Commemorating the Soldier Finalizes the Details 

 123

preserving uniformity, Dekel once again made an urgent request to legally secure the prohibition to establish a military tomb outside the purview of the Defense Ministry or to amend the established texts, and to impose penalties on anyone who violated the prohibition. This time as well, though, his request was turned down.⁷⁵ With the intention of accelerating the technical process of engraving the tombstones and erecting them, the Division for Commemorating the Soldier turned that very month to the parents of the slain soldiers with a letter about “adding details for inscription on the uniform tombstone for the IDF fallen,” where all the decisions were reported in detail. The parents were asked to fill in the questionnaire and to note the appropriate details for the purpose of inscribing them on the tombstone. It was written in the letter that “according to the decision of the Council for Commemorating the Soldier the details to be recorded on all the tombstones of the War of Independence heroes were to be as follows: the symbol of the IDF, personal number and rank, the name and family name, the name of the father and mother, dates exclusively according to the Hebrew calendar, year of birth (without noting age), for a person born in Israel – his place of birth, for an immigrant – his year of immigration and country of origin, circumstances of his falling and death (fell in battle, fell fulfilling his duty, died during military service), the place where he fell. In case the soldier fell in a Jewish community the name of the community and the name of the region will be written and in the case that the soldier fell in an Arab community one should write in a general fashion the name of the region (only in special cases will the name of the Arab community be written), the day that he fell, and the ending ‫ תנצב"ה‬as is customary in Jewish tombstones.” Parents who wanted to do so were permitted to add the following details: 1. Nickname – if they gave to the deceased a moniker of endearment – this name would be engraved in parentheses. The same would be done upon demands from the parents for his foreign name, if the deceased had one. 2. Civilian degree – such as rabbi, professor, dr., architect, engineer, Master of Arts from the university, etc. 3. Kohen. If the father is a Kohen – this word will be engraved upon his request alongside the name. 4. The parents were given permission to determine the spelling of the names. It was further resolved that on the tombstones of non-Jewish dead the inscription would be written both in Hebrew and in English (or in 75 Ibid., Y. Dekel to the legal advisor of the Defense Ministry, 3.1.1951; ibid., the assistant legal advisor of the Defense Ministry to Y. Dekel, 11.30.1951. See also ibid., Y. Dekel to the legal advisor of the Defense Ministry, 11.16.1951; ibid., file 90/72/156, Y. Dekel to the legal advisor of the Defense Ministry, 6.23.1953; ibid., file 849/73/150, M. Necht to Y. Dekel, 7.29.1953; ibid., file 90/72/156, Y. Dekel to the director general of the Defense Ministry, 2.2.1953.

124 

 The Uniform Inscription

Arabic), and they would write both the Hebrew date and secular date. In practice apparently the authorities were not strict about inscribing the Hebrew dates on the tombstones of non-Jewish fallen. In any event, on the grave of a Muslim fallen soldier the general dates were written in regular numbers and Arabic numerals, and on the tombstone of a Christian soldier the Gregorian date was inscribed.⁷⁶ A comparison of the text formula fixed by the council in the first half of 1951, the formula that had been decided upon two years previously by the chief of staff, the formula that the special committee decided upon and the one proposed by Dekel – this comparison shows a degree of liberalism on the part of the Public Council in a direction that permits noting a unique-personal aspect in the inscription. In other words, the formula of the chief of staff and the formula proposed by Dekel advocated “total uniformity,” whereas the formula of the council pointed to movement in the direction of uniqueness. One can prove this from a decision by the council to allow the addition of nicknames and degrees – an option that was not available either in the chief of staff’s formula, or the special committee’s or in the formula proposed by Dekel. Regarding the decision to write only the Hebrew dates, as opposed to the chief of staff’s formula and the special committee’s formula that determined that one should inscribe the secular dates as well – this stemmed from a desire to preserve Jewish religious law and Jewish customs. Towards the end of 1951 the task of hewing the tombstones and engraving the inscriptions, as per the council’s decisions from the beginning of that year, commenced. In the beginning of November 1951 the first military tombstone in the State of Israel was laid. This was in Kfar Malal in accordance with the decision of the council to place tombstones first of all in the small communities and only subsequently in the large communities.⁷⁷ A short time later they also began laying tombstones at Ramat Rachel.⁷⁸ 76 CZA, file 1559/52/95, the Department for Commemorating the Soldier to the bereaved families regarding details for inscription on the uniform tombstone for IDF war dead, April 1951; CZA, file A116/166, protocol of the meeting of the Council’s Subcommittee for Determining the Contents of the Permanent Tombstones, 2.28.1951. See SCA, High Court of Justice file 5843/97, protocol of the meeting of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee’s Subcommittee for Legislation, 8.28.1996, pp. 7-9, regarding the insufficient clarity that existed in practice regarding the inscription of the dates on the tombstones of non-Jews and the words of MK Meir Shitrit regarding the Christian fallen that one should insist on engraving a Hebrew date on their graves “in order not to distinguish them from others. If someone should insist upon it – then they can delete the Hebrew date.” 77 RMA, letter of the Thirty-Five Parents Committee to the families of the Thirty-Five, 1.20.1952, that said: “In accordance with the decision of the Public Council they have begun erecting tombstones for the fallen in the small cemeteries. The first tombstone was set in Kfar Malal on 8 Heshvan 5712, 11.9.1952.” 78 CZA, file A116/166, report on a visit by a council subcommittee to Ramat Rachel, 7.18.1952.

The Parents’ Demands to Note the Secular Dates 

 125

At the close of April 1952 the Public Council visited the “Even Vasid” tombstone factory in the Haifa Bay, where the work for preparing the tombstones was performed. Among other things “we commented on the need for correcting the writing of the letters that sometimes require correction in order to distinguish between similar letters.” Likewise council members expressed their opinion that “the stone appears to us to be quite strong and capable of prolonged resistance to rain and inclement weather.”⁷⁹ After a few months, in the beginning of August 1952, Dekel already informed Shimon Peres, the deputy director general of the Defense Ministry, that 500 tombstones had been completed and laid according to the uniform formula determined by the council in early 1951. With the intention of simultaneously setting the tombstones in a number of cemeteries, the tombstones “represent in every burial place only part of the tombstones that have to be erected in this cemetery, in other words: for a cemetery that has 150 graves, 30 or 40 tombstones were prepared.”⁸⁰ In this fashion they began to lay the engraved tombstones according to the formula that was adopted in 1951, but as we shall see below, this formula was about to undergo modification already in the immediate future.

The Parents’ Demands to Note the Secular Dates and Implement Additional Changes in the Uniform Text, and the Decision to Note the Age of the Slain Soldier (1952) When the parents found out what the final formula adopted by the Public Council was, especially when the process of preparing the tombstones, the engraving of the inscriptions and laying the pillows began at the end of 1951, demands began piling up at the Division for Commemorating the Soldier and the Public Council from parents who requested changes in the obligatory text formula set by the council during the first half of 1951. The most common demand was to note the secular dates alongside the Hebrew dates as well as to note the age of the deceased at the time that he fell. Thus, for example, council member Yitzhak Ben-Zvi received a request from parents asking that on the “tombstone of their son the secular date should be noted alongside the Hebrew date. This is a psychological need and why shouldn’t the wishes of the bereaved parents be met?”⁸¹ A more detailed request “in the name of all the mothers and a large portion of the 79 Ibid., report of a survey by the Public Council in the north of Israel on April 21-22, 1952, written by Y. Ben-Zvi. 80 AA, file 220/70/213, Y. Dekel to S. Peres, 8.7.1952. 81 CZA, file A116/166, M. Pamatanke to Y. Dekel, 6.27.1952.

126 

 The Uniform Inscription

fathers” who organized in the framework of a special parents’ committee already adopted the more assertive tone of “both as a request and as a demand… to so order the inscription on our sons’ tombstones together with their Hebrew date of death their ages as well: for example: aged 18, aged 19, etc.” This request was accompanied by an explanation – perhaps that very same “psychological need” mentioned in the previous requests: “Those who visit the military cemeteries, especially the women and tourists from abroad, cannot detect and calculate the age of the soldiers who fell solely by the Hebrew dates. We find ourselves obligated [emphasis original] to emphasize that most of our sons went to their deaths before they reached the draft age, in the flower of their youth, and that they gave their lives on the altar of liberating the homeland out of a sense of inner obligation without being demanded to do so by the government or by the national institutions. It is our opinion that we would perform an injustice to our children [emphasis original] if on behalf of any principle whatsoever we were to conceal [emphasis original] their age and not engrave in a fashion comprehensible to all circles of our people [emphasis original] the total years of their brief lives.”⁸² An additional letter by that same parents committee raised the demand to note the secular dates of birth and death as well, but a compromise proposal was appended “to engrave instead of the date of birth the numerical age… we regard this proposal as a compromise proposal and we will not give way on this in any event.”⁸³ Irma Traves, a member of that committee, proposed adding to the inscription as decided by the council the date of birth and date of death, in the margins of the pillow, with numerals the size of the numerals for the personal serial number. She even appended a sketch for illustration and emphasized that she was convinced that she was expressing in this manner the desire of most of the mothers, especially as in this fashion “these dates solve the problem of the son’s age to the parents’ satisfaction.”⁸⁴ The parents’ request on the matter of noting the general dates and the age upon death also reached the Yad Labanim Center, which demanded that the Public Council “change the text formula on the tombstones and instead of the date of death write aged such and such upon his death [emphasis original]” in order to satisfy the parents’ desire “to emphasize the tender age of the fallen.”⁸⁵ The parents’ request also reached the Public Council members directly, and pre82 Ibid., a letter signed by three mothers – B. Cohen, D. Lerman and G. Krein – addressed to Y. Ben-Zvi from the Public Council, 6.18.1952. 83 Ibid., D. Lerman to the Public Council, 6.30.1952. 84 Ibid., I. Traves to Y. Persich, 6.22.1952; ibid., Y. Persich to members of the Public Council, 6.24.1952. 85 Ibid., Y. Greenfield to the chairman of the Public Council, 3.12.1952.

The Parents’ Demands to Note the Secular Dates 

 127

sumably council members also raised the demand to alter the decision that they themselves had adopted less than a year and a half ago. Thus, for example, Yitzhak Persich, in a letter that he wrote at the end of 1952 to all his fellow members on the council, stated that “the issue of engraving the European date on the tombstones is still making waves. Perhaps it would be more correct to say making even greater waves. In a tour of the military cemeteries that took place on June 18, 19 and when we visited the Even Vasid plant and saw the already prepared tombstones, the question again arose with great severity especially by mothers who participated in the tour.” Persich urgently wanted to place the issue on the council agenda – since the process of manufacturing the pillows and setting them on the graves was going full throttle – and he supported the proposal by Ms. Traves to add to the margins of the previously authorized inscription, the dates of birth and death in small numerals. In his opinion, these “won’t disturb the general tombstone and will not require increasing the area of the tombstone. Furthermore, the tombstones are already prepared – and one can add the small line.”⁸⁶ It appears that after the council had adopted its decision about the inscription formula at the start of 1951 and until an additional fundamental discussion took place at the council a year and a half later, where they finalized the matter of the uniform inscription, additional demands were raised by the parents for amending the previously authorized inscription formula. One of the earliest demands was raised already in the beginning of 1951, by the parents of those who perished in the convoy of the Thirty-Five who pressed to avoid “noting the ranks and personal serial numbers on the tombs of their sons.”⁸⁷ In their applications to Defense Minister David Ben-Gurion and Yosef Dekel they added the following: They fought without distinction of ranks, as volunteer Haganah members, and they are dear to us the way they were. Assigning titles to them can pain the parents by marring the image of our sons. Therefore we request that you provide instructions to those in charge of erecting the tombstones to note alongside the generally accepted text “he fell with the Thirty-Five on the way to Gush Etzion” without noting ranks and without serial numbers…⁸⁸ The most sublime honor and grace of every single one of them was that they happened to be one of the Thirty-Five. Therefore, give an instruction to those in charge of establishing the

86 See the letter by Y. Persich (above, footnote 84). 87 Ibid., letter from the parents of the Thirty-Five to D. Ben-Gurion, January 1951; ibid., N. Argov to the chairman of the Public Council, 4.19.1951. 88 Letter from the parents of the Thirty-Five to D. Ben-Gurion (above, footnote 87). See also RMA, letter from the parents of the Thirty-Five to D. Ben-Gurion, undated, but almost certainly from March 1951, regarding their refusal to award ranks posthumously to their children; ibid., protocol of the Thirty-Five Parents’ Committee’s meeting, 3.8.1951.

128 

 The Uniform Inscription

tombstones to note on the tombstone the name, the name of the parents, date of birth, date of the battle and death, a member of the Thirty-Five…⁸⁹ We are not opposed to “uniform tombstones,” of the same stone, the same size and shape and symbol in every cemetery, this is self explanatory. We merely oppose the addition of deceptive words (namely serial number and military rank that were added after their death) [parentheses original] that distort the essence of their sacrifice and the memory of the Thirty-Five’s image. We are all firmly determined not to give in on this and we will defend an honest type of inscription on the graves of our children against any corruption, even if somebody thinks it represents some bonus or an additional “honor” we won’t agree. This is a threat that is causing us additional anguish and anger. There are parents who came to me especially from distant places to pose questions and demand that the matter be resolved. There were tears, and there were also threats. I must hereby inform you as the person directing the division handling the matter, before the tombstones are to be set. I must further add that if the opinion and position of the bereaved parents will not suffice, we will have to examine the legal aspect of the decree against us and the memory of our sons and we will file a legal complaint.⁹⁰

With their threats to adopt legal measures the parents of the Thirty-Five anticipated by a few decades the applications by parents to receive relief from the High Court of Justice because of the inscription on the tombstones. The intensity of the bereaved parents’ pain is what prompted them to turn to the courts or at least 89 RMA, letter of the parents of the Thirty-Five, undated (above, footnote 88). See also ibid., protocol of the meeting of the Thirty-Five Parents’ Committee on 3.25.1951 at the home of the Mass family, where a stormy debate erupted between the majority of the parents who wanted to preserve the uniqueness of the Thirty-Five fallen and the internal unity of their tombstones and not include ranks and serial numbers, and a minority that included R. Mass and Y. Persich, who did not want to exclude themselves from the general public but to preserve uniformity. Mass said in his opinion: “There is no way of making an exception of the Thirty-Five.” Persich added: “The master of the house in the military cemeteries is the Army [here Persich erred, because according to law the military cemetery was the responsibility of the Defense Ministry]. The Army won’t forgo its opinion, not towards ranks and serial numbers. The matter of giving military status is also an economic issue for hundreds and thousands, for someone who wasn’t given military status cannot receive compensation… It is impermissible for the Thirty-Five to stick out due to its humility.” In opposition Dr. Reich said: “[I] cannot agree with the fact that we should worry about the general public. What interests me is my son’s grave or to go along with the group of the Thirty-Five. [I] demand that we should write a letter to Ben-Gurion and if he doesn’t agree one should go to court. The Army doesn’t have the right to draft dead people.” And Halevi added: “We don’t want to stick out but we want modesty by demanding that they shouldn’t be given ranks and serial numbers.” 90 RMA, H. Reich to Y. Dekel, 1.24.1952. See also ibid., a general letter to the parents of the Thirty-Five from the Parents’ Committee of the Thirty-Five, 1.20.1952; ibid., N. Argov to R. Mass, 6.13.1951; ibid., the head of the Chief of Staff’s office to the Thirty-Five Parents’ Committee, 1.16.1952.

The Parents’ Demands to Note the Secular Dates 

 129

threaten turning to the courts, and they sensed that if they would obtain some form of relief, this would only occur via the courts.

Fig. 27: Burial of the Thirty-Five in Mount Herzl Military Cemetery. Source: Reuven Mass Private Archives.

Nehemiah Argov, the military secretary of the prime minister, believed that “there is no serious reason to refuse” the request by the parents of the Thirty-Five and approached the chairman of the Public Council on this matter; however Ben-Gurion, not surprisingly, vigorously opposed this for the sake of preserving the principle of the uniformity of tombstones. He “expressed his opinion that one should not make any changes regarding the Thirty-Five as opposed to the other dead soldiers. The Prime Minister also voiced this firmly in the presence of the chief of staff.”⁹¹ Dekel made it clear to the parents of the Thirty-Five that they were dealing with Army decisions regarding the conferral of the personal numbers and ranks, and this is how one should proceed. He reiterated the emphasis on the matter of uniformity: “I would like to direct your attention to the importance that the tombstones of all IDF dead should be uniform, and in accordance with the decisions of 91 RMA, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 9.19.1951 (the protocol is also located in CZA, file A116/166).

130 

 The Uniform Inscription

our supreme institutions all those who fell in the War of Independence from the date of 11.29.47 are soldiers of the Israeli Defense Forces.”⁹² The mothers of the fallen presented a request to eliminate the line noting the names of the parents for “this isn’t a monument for the parents but for the sons, and it is totally unimportant if the names of the parents don’t appear. This is especially true as there will be no value to the names of the parents after they are gone.” In this manner it would be possible to enlarge the other letters on the tombstone, “something which is of especially great importance. The more the entire inscription is abbreviated and the letters are larger, the tombstone is more comely and more striking.”⁹³ Another painful request dealt with “linking the tombstones.” The request came from a bereaved mother who lost her husband and son in the War of Independence, and her sole desire was that in the inscription on her husband’s tombstone mention would be made of the son’s falling and the details of his death, while on the tombstone of the son the father would be mentioned together with details about his death. “You must know unfortunately there are not many cases in Israel where two people fell from the same family, a father and son. Unfortunately I am alone, and therefore I arrogate for myself this privilege at the least and there’s no basis to ignore this tragic case.”⁹⁴ “And since the preparation of the tombstones is already at the implementation stage and no directive has been issued to link the tablets, I fear that it might be too late… I hope that you’ll understand me and consider this case as totally unique… After all I have drunk the bitter cup twice, this is a decree of fate, one cannot change this… I cannot forego this request in any fashion. I hope you won’t disappoint me as a bereaved mother and wife because this is my only solace in the corner of my somber existence…”⁹⁵ Following this impassioned request the Yad Labanim center presented the Public Council with a demand in principle that “in the case where both a father and son fell – to emphasize this on the tombstone”; however, Dekel made it clear that technically there was no way to honor this request.⁹⁶ The Division for Commemorating the Soldier also received on its docket a request from a mother to engrave the inscription, and especially the name of her fallen son, in Latin letters. The husband even threatened that if this would not be done he would take care to erect the tombstone by himself and at his expense.⁹⁷

92 Ibid., Y. Dekel to H. Reich, 4.30.1951. 93 CZA, file A116/166, Y. Persich to the members of the Public Council, 6.24.1952. 94 Ibid., B. Zilberstein to Y. Ben-Zvi, 11.28.1951 – the source of the citation. See also ibid., B. Zilberstein to Y. Ben-Zvi, 4.30.1952. 95 Ibid., from B. Zilberstein to the prime minister and defense minister, 5.14.1952. 96 Ibid., Y. Dekel to B. Zilberstein, 12.16.1951. 97 Ibid., P. Zys to Y. Dekel, 5.7.1952; ibid., Y. Dekel to P. Zys, 5.15.1952.

The Parents’ Demands to Note the Secular Dates 

 131

The Yad Labanim center, in addition to the demand noted above, requested “moving the symbol on the tombstone, from the place currently earmarked for it, more to the right in order that the name should come out in the middle.”⁹⁸ Just as it had rejected the demand by the parents of the Thirty-Five, so apparently the Division for Commemorating the Soldier turned down the other requests in the name of the principle of uniformity, save for the demands of parents regarding noting the secular dates of birth and death. As the number of parents raising this demand was too large, this compelled the Public Council for Commemorating the Soldier to view this request positively. Indeed, in June 1952 the council convened for a discussion that focused on the parents’ demand to note the secular dates of birth and death as well as the age of the fallen. In this discussion substantial differences of opinion surfaced for the first time among council members; likewise a number of fundamental matters were expressed such as the status of the council as an advisory or decision-making body, the status of the parents in the demands for changes and the need to be attentive to the feelings of the parents even at the expense of fundamental decisions by the council including the principle of uniformity – issues that would accompany the council for many years onwards. Hence, for example, the session rejected a proposal not to discuss the parental demands at all but allow the defense minister and prime minister to decide on the issue. As grounds for turning down this proposal it was emphasized that the council was the authorized body for dealing with appeals on its decisions and it is authorized to accept or reject such appeals. Only when the council adopted new decisions did it have to refer them to the defense minister,⁹⁹ for “the defense minister established the council and it is for the council to decide.”¹⁰⁰ “The council is independent. If someone [else] decides, for what purpose does the council exist, the council has a right to decide because no one else has the right to decide otherwise.”¹⁰¹ The chairman of the council, Ben-Zvi, whose statement served as a preface to the discussion, alluded that it was problematic that the council had just recently adopted fundamental decisions connected with the inscription, and now it was being requested to reopen them for discussion. This was compounded by a practical problem, for 600 tombstones had already been prepared as per the decisions of the council on the inscription from 1951, and some of them had even been set in place; and in this fashion, changes on the new monuments would damage uniformity while additions to tombstones that had already been prepared “will 98 Ibid., Y. Greenfield to the Chairman of the Public Council, 3.12.1952. 99 Ibid., protocol of the Public Council meeting, 7.16.1952, from a statement by Y. Ben-Zvi. 100 Ibid., from a statement by R. Mass. 101 Ibid., from a statement by A. Shvat.

132 

 The Uniform Inscription

make the slab ugly and there will not be uniformity.”¹⁰² In any event, the council allowed a delegation of bereaved mothers to present their arguments before it. They reiterated the matters that were noted above. They emphasized that they were demanding “comprehensible dates on the tombstones and not only in Hebrew. Ninety percent of the mothers don’t understand the Hebrew dates.” Furthermore, one had to consider the younger generation as well, as the school children, who were to be impressed by the message of the fallen, do not understand the Hebrew dates. “The tombstones must be like a clear and open book in order to emphasize the young age of the sons when they fell. If for traditional people it is hard to forgo the Hebrew dates one should add the secular dates to the tombstone or at least the age of the son at the time that he fell… if the council will not find a solution for this than the mothers would find an alternative recourse…”¹⁰³ Ms. Kaspi, a council member, argued “that she wants them to come and see how old the people who established the state were, on this matter she will not yield. She is proud that her son aged 20 or aged 17 established the state. Just like the book ‘Scrolls of Fire’ which is the most sublime commemoration so is the age of dying.”¹⁰⁴ In reply Ben-Zvi clarified that in setting the Hebrew date “there was no intention of harming or hiding anything” and the matter is entirely tied to one thing: “The council gave consideration to Jewish tradition and there was no hidden motive. They wanted to preserve a tradition that is widespread among the entire Jewish Diaspora worldwide and here as well the intention was honorable.”¹⁰⁵ There is no doubt that at the time a national interest augmented the desire to preserve Jewish tradition. Council members offered three fundamental positions in the course of the deliberations (similar positions relying on similar justifications would be expressed in the council many years later, although membership on the council varied). One position argued that it was necessary to consider the parents’ opinion and amend the decisions that were adopted by the council, despite the fundamental and practical problems involved, for “One must give precedence to the feelings and pains of the many parents and one must consider the psychological need of the parents.”¹⁰⁶ The second position advocated rejecting the parents’ demands on principle, for a number of reasons: 1. The demands ran counter to a previous decision that had been adopted unanimously, especially as prior notification was required regarding a deliberation that would take place in the council 102 Ibid., from a statement by Y. Dekel. 103 Ibid., from the words of Ms. Traves and Ms. Lerman. 104 Ibid., from the statement of Ms. S. Kaspi. 105 Ibid., from the statement by Y. Ben-Zvi. 106 Ibid., from the statement by Y. Greenfield.

The Parents’ Demands to Note the Secular Dates 

 133

on the issue of changing the contents of this inscription – a condition that had not been fulfilled prior to the current deliberation; 2. The parents demanding the changes regarding the dates and age were not representative of the total number of parents (“if 90% of the parents would conduct a survey among themselves they would say that they do not want a Christian date”);¹⁰⁷ 3. We are dealing with excessive demands on the part of unfortunate mothers “whose distress drives them mad”; 4. A number of tombstones had been laid in place. Therefore changes or an addition to the existing tombstones “will make the slab ugly and there will not be uniformity” – as opposed to a fundamental and binding decision. The replacement of those pillows that had already been put in place in addition to those that had already been prepared but not yet set in place – a total of 600 – would incur financial damage but primarily an additional delay in setting the tombstones and to disgruntlement on the part of the parents, for the setting of the tombstones has already been delayed for some time. Indeed, bitter complaints by parents regarding the delay in setting the stones were heard from time to time;¹⁰⁸ 5. There was no end to it – “now they’re arriving with new demands and they could come with interminable demands and so there would be no end to the story…¹⁰⁹ and at the time that they erect the tombstones they will encounter a vigorous demand that the letters should be in color, they’ll say that they’re unable to read it, what will then be the case?”¹¹⁰ It should come as no surprise that Rabbi Shaag was the person who championed the line in the council that rejected the proposal for changes on principle, because he sought to preserve the Jewish tradition that prohibited the writing of secular dates on tombstones. But it turned out that most of the council members, including the chairman, Ben-Zvi, believed that one should not allow noting the secular dates.¹¹¹ Therefore a third, conciliatory position crystallized in the council and was led by Ben-Zvi and Mass. There was agreement on engraving only the Hebrew dates, but it was nonetheless decided to add in numerals the age of the soldier upon his death and omit the date of birth. “The day of birth is not the determining factor, what determines is the date [they] fell [the special prayers on the annual date, the commemoration and the going up to the graveside] and the age at the time of death.”¹¹² This, therefore, was the manner in which the council’s

107 Ibid., from the words of Rabbi Shaag. 108 On such complaints see for example the letter from P. Zys (above, footnote 97). 109 See above, footnote 99, the citations are from the statements by Y. Dekel and R. Mass. 110 Ibid., from a statement by Y. Persich. 111 See the protocol above in footnote 99 and see above, p. 107, where we went into detail on the prohibition against writing secular dates. 112 Ibid., from the statements by Y. Ben-Zvi and Y. Greenfield.

134 

 The Uniform Inscription

deliberations ended, but the final decision was entrusted to a select committee comprising among others Ben-Zvi, Shaag and Mass. The committee was asked to visit the Ramat Rachel cemetery in two days time, where they had begun setting the first pillows, to form an impression and take the final decision.¹¹³ Indeed, on July 18, 1952, the committee visited Ramat Rachel and ratified the conclusion that was adopted in the council, in other words to leave out the year of birth and note the age that the soldier fell. Although the committee was divided on whether to engrave the age in letters or numerals, the issue was quickly decided in favor of using numerals.¹¹⁴ This represented a symbolic compensation for those who demanded writing the secular dates as well. Furthermore, the age as noted in numerals was clear and immediately emphasized the very young age of the fallen.

Fig. 28: Final formula adopted by the Public Council in summer 1952. Source: Author’s photographs, February 2002.

One should note that despite the decisions that were adopted, council member Yitzhak Persich returned to the topic in 1953 and proposed noting the lifespan of the fallen soldier by the secular date. He argued that since the military cemeteries were becoming the burial places of additional dead and not only the dead from 113 See the protocol above in footnote 99. 114 CZA, file A116/166, a report on the visit by the Public Council subcommittee to the military cemetery at Ramat Rachel, 7.18.1952; AA, file 220/70/213, Y. Dekel to S. Peres, 8.7.1952.

Additional Discussions on the Inscription Formula 

 135

the War of Independence, it was becoming impossible to distinguish between those who fell to establish the state and those who had died recently and in this fashion the dead from the War of Independence were losing their uniqueness and the special commemoration that they deserved. The way he put it was: “To our hearts’ distress even now Israeli soldiers are dying. Their memory is venerated; we extend our heartfelt feelings to the bereaved families. However is there no distinction between them and the children who from a volunteer spirit and a lust for sacrifice established the state? There can be no doubt of this fact. Presently when we go up to the military cemeteries we do not observe any distinction between them. Especially there is no visible difference to someone coming from the outside and likewise it will not be visible with the passage of time to a resident of Israel. Don’t these wonderful children deserve at least that the future generations should know that they were the ones who established the state? Is this not an educational act and commemoration of the first order? However the text: fell at the age so and so doesn’t say anything…”¹¹⁵ It seems that Persich understood that in his attempt to distinguish between one fallen soldier and the other he was uprooting the principles of uniformity and equality that formed the groundwork of a military cemetery, and therefore even if he wanted to he knew that the matter was impossible within the framework of the law and the decisions that have been adopted in the Public Council and the defense establishment. Therefore he proposed a way to bypass this obstacle that would allow him to secure his objective. And thus he proposed adding “one short little line as previously suggested for example 3.18.1924-1.16.1948. Anybody could see at a glance both the age of the fallen soldier and the fact that he was one of the founders of the state.”¹¹⁶ However, the matter never arose for discussion in the council – almost certainly because decisions had already been adopted regarding notation of the age.

Additional Discussions on the Inscription Formula, Abolishing the Civilian Degree and Ratifying Categories of Death (1953-1954) On its visit to the cemetery in Ramat Rachel, the special committee appointed by the council decided in July 1952 that the tombstones that have already been laid and that noted the dates of birth and death but did not record age upon death 115 RMA, statement by Y. Persich in the wake of a tour of the military cemeteries on June 15-16, 1953. 116 Ibid.

136 

 The Uniform Inscription

– these tombstones should remain in place, but if there should be a demand on the part of parents, an additional line would be added where the age upon death would be noted. This decision to leave the various tombstones of the uniform model in place was adopted although it constituted impairment to the principle of uniformity for military tombstones. From the committee protocols one derives the impression that it was not perturbed about this.¹¹⁷ Nevertheless, there was someone, namely Yosef Dekel, the chairman of the Division for Commemorating the Soldier, who was vexed by this impairment to uniformity and the slight to the parents of the fallen whose tombstones had already been set; he had already warned of the foreseeable impairment to the uniformity of tombstones during the deliberations of the Public Council when it was agreed upon to add the age upon death.¹¹⁸ In a letter from August 1952 classified as “secret” he requested that Shimon Peres, the current deputy director general of the Defense Ministry, address these issues, and it would be proper to cite them verbatim: Two weeks ago the Public Council for Commemorating the Soldier decided on changes in the details on the tombstone and that one should add to each tombstone “aged 18 upon his death” or “aged 20 when he fell”—and the like. There is no technical possibility for adding this on the tombstones that have been prepared hitherto because the text on each tombstone was distributed exactly according to the size of the area and every text concludes with the letters ‫תנצב"ה‬. The only possible option is to cancel the tombstones that were already prepared and that we to a large extent have already transferred to the burial places. In order to preserve the uniformity of tombstones we have to cancel all the tombstones that were prepared and this would cause a financial loss of approximately 25,000 Israeli lire. The second method is to polish the face of the tombstones already prepared and efface the writing that has already been engraved by machine polishing and then engrave the entire text from scratch. This will result in lowering the tombstone by half a centimeter approximately and even if it is possible to do so this will cost 10,000-12,000 lire. The third way is to leave the tombstones that have already been prepared as they are, and to engrave the new ones in accordance with the last decision of the Council for Commemorating the Soldier, and there is no doubt that the bereaved parents who’ll subsequently discover that the tombstones of their beloved are missing a verse can demand from us to remove the tombstones and engrave tombstones according to the new formula.¹¹⁹

Following Dekel’s letter a fundamental decision was taken in the defense establishment to preserve uniformity in any case and replace all the tombstones that had already been prepared under the old formula, some of which had even been set, with new tombstones engraved according to the new inscription formula that

117 Letter from Y. Dekel to S. Peres (above, footnote 114). 118 CZA, file A116/166, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 7.16.1952. 119 See above, footnote 117.

Additional Discussions on the Inscription Formula 

 137

was decided upon in summer 1952.¹²⁰ A substitution of tombstones would not take place in those isolated locations where all the tombstones had already been set employing the old formula. In other words, there would be no compromise on uniformity within the very same cemetery, but there was room for compromise over differences between one cemetery and the next.¹²¹ Due to a desire to strictly observe uniformity of the tombstones the Division for Commemorating the Soldier refrained from erecting the tombstones when it lacked full details about each fallen soldier, as Dekel reported to the council in August 1953: “There is a problem that is not dependent upon us, and that is knowledge concerning all details about the slain. We know the details but to this day, the parents have not yet responded to us about the details that are familiar to them such as: date of birth, year of immigration, etc. We seek the uniformity of the graves and this obligates us to write the details on all the tombstones.”¹²² This ranked among the chief factors responsible for the tangible delay in the process of preparing the headstones and setting them, a delay that continued on into 1953 and most of 1954, and that drew complaints from the rest of the parents and the Yad Labanim institutions.¹²³ Let us add that subsequently at the beginning of 120 AA, file 90/72/157, memorandum from the meeting of Yad Labanim representatives with Defense Minister P. Lavon, 3.1.1954, from a statement by Y. Dekel. 121 RMA, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 5.7.1953, where Mass relates that “in those places where the tombstones had already been set we decided to leave them in place whereas in places where they were only partially set we returned them to the factory.” These words do not coincide with a report by Y. Dekel before the conclave of Yad Labanim on 9.15.1954 – see SIA, file C 5436/71. At this conclave Y. Dekel emphasized that “with regards to the tombstone: we are erecting a tombstone, and it is uniform throughout Israel. The demand for this was constant, and this matter cannot be changed.” 122 AA, file 90/72/156, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 8.5.1953, from the comments by Y. Dekel. The Division for Commemorating the Soldier also reports on the problematic nature of obtaining data about the fallen, as follows: “Those engaging in the work have encountered difficulties that were not anticipated in advance for many of the fallen were known only by aliases or borrowed names or by their nicknames of endearment. In some cases the names are similar and their identification was very difficult; sometimes names were corrupted at the time they were submitted and the matter required clarification. Not infrequently it would happen – and particularly during constant battle and on enemy territory – that the circumstances of the death and the location of burial were not entered.” See The Division for Commemorating the Soldier (1960), p. 10. Despite the efforts the survey reports that during that year there remained a number of tombstones where the details were missing. On this see ibid., p. 14. 123 See above, footnote 120; protocol of the Public Council meeting (above, footnote 122); RMA, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 5.7.1953. See also in detail on the delays and their causes in the Yad Labanim conference (above, footnote 121), statement by Y. Dekel. See the meeting of the parents with the defense minister (above, footnote 120), where the complaints were so bitter that some parents emphatically demanded that they be allowed to erect the tombstones them-

138 

 The Uniform Inscription

1954, in an apparent attempt to shorten the delays in setting the headstones, the council decided “to leave a vacant space on the headstone [pillow] so it would be possible to add details or names when they became obtainable.”¹²⁴

Fig. 29: Temporary signs in the Nahlat Yitzhak military cemetery, 1950. Source: National Photo Collection.

It was actually the delay that enabled the council to raise the issue of the uniform inscription for renewed discussion in 1953. In this discussion as well, remarks and reservations on matters that had already been decided in the past were voiced. One matter that was discussed at the beginning of summer 1953 was noting the civilian title of the fallen. In early 1951 it had been decided to note the civilian title of the fallen (such as rabbi, dr., engineer, etc.), whereas now there were increased objections to this on the part of parents of fallen soldiers who had selves: “If the government cannot erect the tombstones let us do it ourselves” (from a statement by M. Bdolach). 124 RMA, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 1.26.1954.

Additional Discussions on the Inscription Formula 

 139

not obtained higher degrees. They wished to annul the notation of a degree or alternatively note titles such as “farmer,” “draftsman,” etc.¹²⁵ In the following council discussion,¹²⁶ only one member favored leaving the previous decision in place, arguing that the decision of 1951 referred only to academic degrees and “an academic degree is part of the person’s name.”¹²⁷ The other members demanded abolishing the notation of the degree. They presented a number of justifications in support – beginning with the need to create uniformity and prevent differences and division among the fallen, proceeding to the argument that noting the title was not intended to honor the fallen but to honor the parents, and concluding with the technical-procedural problem connected with requesting the appropriate documents from the parents that proved the degree was bona fide. It appears that a number of council members were not aware of the fact that some of their justifications also mandated removing the military rank. Opponents of mentioning the civilian degree emphasized: I believe that the most honored degree is fell on behalf of the Homeland [emphasis original]. What will the degree doctor, pharmacist, attorney add? In my opinion the title farmer, agricultural worker is no less worthy than a doctor or pharmacist. If they write dr. why shouldn’t a father from Nahalal demand that they should write that his son was a farmer? In addition we are making distinctions between one and the next, why should we sow divisions between them… let us not separate them at least now; let everything be uniform in this sacred place… if such a decision was made, that was mistaken and one should rescind the previous decision…¹²⁸ Only a primitive person could think that this adds something. This is sacrilege. The degree of “volunteer” is the most honorable…¹²⁹ If we look closely at the matter we see that this is a lie. Those [who support noting the degree] say that this is in honor of the son, this is not true. They want to adorn themselves with these feathers.¹³⁰

Thus, with an absolute majority and with one member dissenting, it was decided to abolish the notation of the civilian degree.¹³¹ A second issue that was discussed in the summer of that very same year was the inscription of the parents’ names on the tombstones: who preceded whom, 125 Ibid., protocol of the Public Council meeting, 5.7.1953. 126 Ibid., protocol of the Public Council meeting, 6.2.1953. 127 Ibid., from the statement by R. Mass. 128 Ibid., from a statement by A. Shvat. 129 Ibid., from a statement by S. Lavie. 130 Ibid., from the statement by Rabbi Shaag. 131 See above, footnote 126. See also RMA, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 7.1.1953.

140 

 The Uniform Inscription

the mother or the father? It’s not clear why the issue arose for discussion, but it is possible that the matter was connected to the immense activism that particularly the mothers displayed on the issue of the inscription, as we discovered above. In any case the decision was to ratify what the council subcommittee had already decided “on defining the content of the permanent tombstones for the heroes of the War of Independence” from the close of February 1951, i.e., that the name of the mother took precedence.¹³² The special committee that visited Ramat Rachel in July 1952 adopted a similar decision.¹³³ A third issue that came up for renewed discussion in the council during summer 1953 dealt with the categories involving cause of death. These had clearly been defined in February 1951 by the Subcommittee for Defining the Content of the Tombstones. This committee had decided on the following categories: “fell in battle,” “fell in the line of duty” and “died during military service.”¹³⁴ Now “comments were overheard about the word ‘died’ and it was recommended to write ‘passed away’ or ‘departed.’” It seems that the issue arose for discussion due to dissatisfaction with including suicides in a single category with those who died for example from illness. Dekel and Peres agreed on a proposal to the council requesting it to define a new category in addition to those that had been set in February 1951, namely the category of “passed away” for the suicides.¹³⁵ The council however decided to adopt the proposal of Mass and Gilboa and determine: “a. For those who fell in the war – to write ‘fell in battle’; b. For those who died or committed suicide – to write ‘died’; c. For everybody else to write ‘fell in the line of duty.’”¹³⁶ In other words, the decision avoided defining a separate category for the suicides, but to ratify in practice the categories that had been decided upon in 1951. Thus, after five years of deliberation and agonizing the Government’s Yearbook for 1954 reported that “the formula for the inscription on the tombstone has

132 See above, p. 120. 133 See above, footnote 114. Subsequently the question would arise regarding the adopted fallen if one should also note the names of their biological parents. At the directive of Rabbi Goren from 1959 onwards it was decided that one should not conceal the names of the biological parents. Nevertheless at least up to 1984 there were no clear guidelines on this issue. See in detail on this issue below, chapter 7. 134 CZA, file A116/166, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 2.28.1951; ibid., the head of the Personal Matters Branch to the Department for Commemorating the Soldier, 2.11.1951. 135 AA, file 90/72/156, a memorandum from a meeting between the director general of the Defense Ministry and the head of the Department for Commemorating the Soldier, 8.31.1953. 136 Ibid., protocol of the Public Council meeting, 9.15.1953.

The Non-Jewish Fallen and Principles Governing the Inscription 

 141

been definitively established” and that “700 permanent tombstones have been set up to now.”¹³⁷ No amendments were made to this formula prior to 1960.¹³⁸

The Non-Jewish Fallen and Principles Governing the Inscription on Their Tombstones in the Framework of Preserving Uniformity The defense establishment was involved with the issue of the inscription on the graves of the Jewish IDF dead almost from the establishment of the state. But no attention had yet been accorded to the issue of the inscription on the tombstones of non-Jewish slain, i.e., Christians (Catholics and Protestants), Muslims and Druze. For the Christians – volunteers from abroad including five pilots “who died on Israel’s behalf” during the War of Independence, a section in the Haifa military cemetery was allocated.¹³⁹ It was decided that the dead whose national identity was unknown should also be buried in the Haifa cemetery.¹⁴⁰ On the one hand, in this fashion problems and Jewish religious legal disputes regarding the burial of Christians alongside of Jews were avoided, and, on the other hand, great discrimination was created vis-à-vis the families of the Christian slain, as they frequently lived far away from Haifa, a fact that occasioned them serious difficulty. Indeed, after a long time burial plots for non-Jews were also established in Afula, Kiryat Shaul, and Beersheba, and in addition it was decided that a non-Jewish fallen soldier whose family requested that he be buried in a cemetery with no section for non-Jewish dead should be buried near the graves of the Jewish dead

137 Government Yearbook, 1955-1956, p. 58. 138 RMA, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 2.24.1961. 139 CZA, file A116/166, report from the visits to the military cemeteries on June 11-12, 1951 conducted by Y. Ben-Zvi in conjunction with the workers of the Department for Commemorating the Soldier, written by Y. Ben-Zvi – the source of the citation. Likewise see AA, file 90/72/156, Y. Dekel to Y. Rosen, 4.13.1953, regarding the fallen from the Minority Brigade, and here Y. Dekel writes: “On many occasions I’ve directed your attention to the fact that we haven’t done anything in the matter of the graves of the fallen from the minorities. We once held a meeting between the representatives of the families and the commander of the minorities’ forces and till this date we haven’t received any notice from you on how matters have developed. I don’t think it’s possible to continue and not take any action on the matter and I request that you direct the commander of the minorities’ force to enter into discussions with us in order to decide on immediate action in this connection,” and the matters speak for themselves. 140 AA, file 702/60/1511, summary of a meeting that took place on 1.5.1951 in the office of Y. Dekel and dealt inter alia with the issue of the burial of war dead whose national identity was unknown.

142 

 The Uniform Inscription

and at a slight distance from them.¹⁴¹ The Druze dead whose families sought to bring them for organized burial were concentrated primarily at Usafiya, and subsequently at Hurfeish and Beit Jann as well, and the Muslims were generally buried in various places throughout Israel at the cemeteries of their communities.¹⁴² Only in 1953, as work on preparing the tombstones progressed, the Division for Commemorating the Soldier began clarifying the subject of the inscription on the tombstones of the non-Jewish dead. In June of that year Dekel approached the legal advisor of the Defense Ministry and posed three fundamental questions: The first, “in what language should one inscribe the tombstones on the graves of foreign soldiers and the slain from the minorities”;¹⁴³ the second, “should the uniformity of the tombstones be preserved or should an additional symbol be engraved on them” in addition to the IDF symbol, for “it is customary worldwide to note on the soldiers’ tombstones the symbol of the slain soldier’s religion”; the third, “should one demarcate the sections of foreigners in the military cemeteries and if so in what manner.”¹⁴⁴ Dekel himself believed that one should preserve the uniformity of the tombstones by not allowing an additional symbol aside from the IDF symbol. But he wished to devote special sections for non-Jews and to note by means of a special stone that would be inscribed in Hebrew and the appropriate language every section where non-Jewish soldiers were buried. Inscribed on the stone would be details regarding both the nationality and the religion of a fallen soldier.¹⁴⁵ The legal advisor of the Defense Ministry made it clear that by law the subject was entirely the purview of Dekel and the Public Council.¹⁴⁶ For the first time a legal entity had interpreted the word “form” in paragraph 5 to the Law of Military Cemeteries (“the form and dimensions of the military tombstones will be deter141 DMA, file B56359, B. Ben Eliezer to Y. Naot, 7.26.2001. See the legislative proposal tabled by Knesset Member Y. Naot in 2001, a proposal that was intended to prevent such discrimination, and her statement before the Knesset Plenum: “One can die with us and not be buried with us? This is insufferable discrimination.” On this see Knesset Protocols, 7.4.2001, p. 6020, and the response by Defense Minister B. Ben Eliezer on 7.26.2001 in DMA, ibid., who contended that the discrimination had already been rectified. And see also Knesset Protocols, 5.16.2001, p. 4749. 142 AA, file 849/73/150, Y. Dekel to the legal advisor of the Defense Ministry, 6.12.1953; Government Yearbook, 1956-1957, pp. 73-74. 143 From the correspondence it is not clear if the foreign language was intended to be the language of the inscription, or the foreign language inscription was to be added to the uniform Hebrew inscription that would appear on the tombstone in any event. On this see the letter from Y. Dekel (above, footnote 142). 144 See the letter from Y. Dekel (above, footnote 142). 145 Ibid. 146 AA, file 849/73/150, M. Necht to Y. Dekel, 7.9.1953.

The Non-Jewish Fallen and Principles Governing the Inscription 

 143

mined by a certified officer”) in a manner that covered not only the geometric shape of the tombstone but also the contents of the inscription. As we shall see below, decades later this issue was submitted again and again to the adjudication of the Supreme Court sitting as a High Court of Justice. In any event, the legal advisor to the Defense Ministry rejected Dekel’s idea regarding a special demarcation of sections for non-Jewish dead, given the “apprehension that demarcation that refers only to non-Jewish graves… can mar the principle of equality and be interpreted as discriminatory.”¹⁴⁷ In the beginning of August 1953 the Public Council dealt for the first time with the entire issue and decided to appoint for this purpose a special committee on its behalf in conjunction with a representative of the Foreign Ministry.¹⁴⁸ It is not clear what this committee decided, but at the end of that month Dekel and Peres, who was already serving as director general of the Defense Ministry, agreed that the names of these dead soldiers of foreign nationality – namely those Christian soldiers from abroad who volunteered to serve in the IDF, fell in the War of Independence and were buried in Haifa – should be inscribed on the tombs in Hebrew “and in the letters of their national language.”¹⁴⁹ Nevertheless until 1955 the issue of the inscription on the tombstones of these dead remained an open one, something that perturbed the defense establishment for “in the military cemetery at Haifa permanent tombstones have already been erected and only the tombstones for the Christian section are missing and this can be interpreted as discrimination and create a bad impression.”¹⁵⁰ One reason for the failure to complete matters was due to a delay in receiving the opinion of the Foreign Ministry on this issue.¹⁵¹ Only in the course of that very same year the Foreign Ministry expressed its opinion that “one should mark in a foreign language the tombstones of nonJews who volunteered for the IDF and fell during the War of Independence,” even if this contravened Jewish religious law and the Jewish tradition, because “the state is obligated to bestow upon these dead the very same honor that we would want them to accord to our dead who fell while volunteering to fight for the independence of other countries.”¹⁵² The Foreign Ministry recommended engraving a cross on these tombstones, as was customary in Christianity. In contrast, the Division for Commemorating the Soldier expressed apprehension that the mark would mar uniformity and 147 Ibid. 148 AA, file 90/72/156, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 8.5.1953, p. 4. 149 See above, footnote 135. 150 AA, file 849/73/150, M. Orbach to M. Necht, March 1955. 151 Ibid. 152 Ibid., S. Rosen to M. Necht, 4.14.1955.

144 

 The Uniform Inscription

ostensibly discriminate against the tombstones of Jewish war dead, for whom there was no religious marking. In reply, the Foreign Ministry contended that it was customary throughout the world to view the Star of David that comprised the IDF emblem as a symbol with religious connotations and not only a secular national symbol.¹⁵³ Upon consultation between the council and the Chief Rabbinate and with the agreement of the latter it was decided in mid-1955 to note the mark of a cross at the side of the graves.¹⁵⁴

Fig. 30: Tombstone of a Bedouin soldier from the Arab al-Heib tribe in Zarzir cemetery. Source: Photos by Saleh Sweid, June 2002.

In practice the agreement between Peres and Dekel from 1953 was applied also to Arabs, and the inscription on their tombstones was bilingual – in Hebrew and in Arabic. Dates were written according to the Hebrew date and the secular date. Nevertheless the rules of the inscription were never formulated for the tombstones of non-Jewish war dead.

153 See above, footnotes 150, 152; AA, file 849/73/150, M. Necht to S. Rosen, 4.24.1955; ibid., S. Rosen to the legal advisor of the Defense Ministry, 5.13.1955. 154 RMA, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 5.31.1955; ibid., Impressions from a Visit by the Public Council to the Military Cemeteries in Haifa and Usafiya, 6.14.1955, written by Y. Persich.

The Non-Jewish Fallen and Principles Governing the Inscription 

 145

Fig. 31: Tombstone of a Christian soldier who fell during the War of Independence and was buried in the military cemetery in Haifa. Source: Author’s photographs, March 2002.

Only in 1996, when the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee discussed the issue of explicit general inscription guidelines for the tombstones of Jewish war dead, it proposed waiving the requirements of noting the Hebrew date on the tombstones of non-Jewish war dead. Knesset Member Meir Shitrit opposed the proposal “in order not to distinguish between them and others,” unless the family explicitly opposed noting the Hebrew date.¹⁵⁵ In the final result it was decided in the ordinances published by the minister and that had been ratified previously by the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that upon the request of relatives one could note only the secular dates.¹⁵⁶

155 SCA, High Court of Justice file 5843/97, protocol of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee’s Subcommittee for Legislation meeting, 8.28.1996, pp. 7-8. 156 DMA, file B20571, Regulations for Military Cemeteries, 1997, 4.23.1997, paragraph 2(7).

Chapter 6 Preserving the Essential Uniformity The Public Council Confronts Requests by Families for Amending the Uniform Inscription (from the mid-50s until the close of the 70s) From the latter half of the 50s, in other words after the issue of the inscription had been finalized, and till the close of the 70s, relatives of the slain soldiers submitted requests to the council for exceptions to the inscription formula. It is hard to ascertain the exact number of requests and their contents, but the impression gathered from the archival material is that although there was an increase in the number of requests following the War of Attrition at the end of the 60s, the number of requests was small in toto. From the 50s it was customary that requests for an exception were handled by the Division for Commemorating the Soldier, and if this did not manage to persuade the relatives to withdraw their request, the request was then referred to the council. In 1968 a subcommittee, namely the Tombstone Subcommittee, was established in the council for the preliminary handling of these issues. It was decided that in the event that an agreement was not reached between the relatives and the Tombstone Subcommittee, the council plenum would rule on the issue.¹ One of the things that characterized the requests in those years was the total lack of the vociferousness and of the unwillingness to be persuaded and accept the ruling of the council that would characterize requests submitted subsequently during the 80s and in particular during the 90s. In almost all cases of requests submitted to the close of the 70s, the petitioning families were persuaded and contented themselves with the policy of the council and the Division for Commemorating the Soldier to preserve the principles of the uniform inscription. Nevertheless requests for insubstantial exceptions, as we shall see below, secured a favorable response from the council. The chairman of the council, Judge Haim Adar, testified in 1983 that “up to now in the vast majority of cases, save for one matter where the subcommittee dealt with the appeals by families about the text on the tombstone, all of them save for a single case, to the best of my knowledge, accepted the proposed text.”² The fact of the matter is that during 20 years only 1 RMA, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 6.18.1968. 2 DMA, folder 4939, file 4, protocol of the joint meeting between the Permanent Committee and the Tombstone Subcommittee of the Public Council, 6.16.1983; ibid., protocol of the Permanent Commission of the Public Council meeting, 9.14.1983; P. Yaron, chairman of the Tombstone Subcommittee during the years 1974-1997, oral testimony, Kfar Saba, 2.5.2003.

The Refusal to Add the Civilian Degree and Personal Expressions 

 147

a solitary case reached the High Court of Justice.³ The acceptance of the council’s principles by the judges of the High Court of Justice in that same case symbolizes not only the council’s status during that period but also recognition of the course taken by the council that expressed preference for the general good over individual demands.

A Favorable Response to Technical Requests and Opposition to Substantial Changes Requests by the families till the close of the 70s could be subdivided into two categories: technical requests and requests of substance. An example of a technical request for which we have documentation is adding the Hebraicized form of the family name of the fallen alongside his parents’ family name, although the Hebraicized name had never been formally substituted by the Ministry of Interior. The Division for Commemorating the Soldier treated the petitioners harshly and refused to honor the request – “and matters reached such a pass that the grave of our beloved one stands abashed to this very day, without a tombstone, alongside the tombstones that were erected some time ago.”⁴ However the council tended to authorize the request.⁵ In general the subcommittee and the council plenum tended to go easy on insubstantial changes.⁶ In contradistinction, requests for substantial changes generally encountered opposition on the council, as Reuven Mass, a council member from the day it was first established, testified in 1961: “There was a difficult battle with bereaved families who requested all sorts of additions to the tombstones, such as secular dates, civilian degrees, etc., and in almost all cases the council decided to refuse.”⁷

The Refusal to Add the Civilian Degree and Personal Expressions It would appear that the original request for a substantial deviation was presented to the council in May 1956 – a request to add the civilian degree. Despite 3 See below. 4 RMA, letter from the Z and K families to R. Mass, 1.9.1963. 5 Ibid., R. Mass to the K family, 1.14.1963. 6 DMA, file 2849/97, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 9.1.1970. 7 RMA, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 2.24.1961; ibid., protocol of the Public Council meeting, 2.25.1969.

148 

 Preserving the Essential Uniformity

complaints by relatives about discrimination, the request was turned down. It is not clear what the relatives intended when they spoke of discrimination, but possibly they meant those tombstones that were set prior to the council’s decision in 1953 abolishing the inscription of degrees.⁸ Similar requests by relatives to add the degree that were raised over the years were also rejected by the council on the grounds of preserving uniformity. This was recorded in the protocol of the council plenum from February 1969, that also provides information about the alternative proposals that were raised to satisfy the wishes of the families somewhat: Major Shlomo Zvi Ran died in the line of duty. The widow insists on having the title Dr. inscribed on the tombstone. The problem was submitted to a meeting of the plenum and it was decided not to grant authorization. The widow is not giving up and requests authorization for the title Dr. Mr. Mass: “There were many similar cases in the past and it was never authorized. [In his opinion] one should not grant authorization this time as well.” Mr. Shvat: “The deviation will not do any damage. If there is room for leniency one should grant authorization.” Mrs. Guber: “He fell in the line of duty. The military rank is inscribed on the tombstone and in any case this constitutes an honorable degree. [She recommends] not granting authorization.” Mr. Kushnir: “I recommend to the council that they provide the widow with satisfaction by maintaining a book in the cemetery that will include all the slain soldiers and that will mention the title Dr. One should not write this on the tombstone.” Mr. Avisar: “A decision was adopted not to modify the accepted custom regarding similar cases and not to inscribe the title Dr. as the widow requests.”⁹

A substantial request of a different sort that was presented in 1956 was submitted by Mrs. Rivka Guber (the request was discussed in her absence, since she herself was a council member), who lost her two sons. She requested adding a special text on the grave of the sons – the text of the oath taken by the younger brother Zvi upon the grave of his brother Ephraim. This request was also turned down on the grounds that “the council seeks uniformity on the tombstones.” Nevertheless the council permitted writing the text of the oath on a plaque that would be placed at the foot of the graves.¹⁰ It is possible that in this fashion the council opened the gates to “annexation” processes surrounding the tombstone by family relatives, and we will expand on this topic below. That year the defense minister 8 Ibid., protocols of the Public Council meetings, 5.22.1956, 10.16.1956. 9 Ibid., protocol of the Public Council meeting, 2.25.1969. 10 Ibid., protocol of the Public Council meeting, 7.18.1956, and this is what Zvi had to say: “My brother – I swear to you – my heart will be your memorial candle! I will trod the path on which you found your death, even in torment, even in pain, and purely with a clear understanding, that this is my final way! I swear to you by the sanctity of the love I bear for you; with the sanctity of all that is worth living for, with the sanctity of everything that is worth dying for.” Subsequently R. Guber asked the council to remove the inscription plaque. On this see the protocol in DMA (above, footnote 6).

From “Died” to “Passed Away” Out of Consideration for the Parents of Suicides 

 149

instructed that Dr. Druyan be buried alongside the grave of his son on Mount Herzl. As may be recalled, the father died when he found out that his son had fallen, and this was the first time that the burial of a civilian in the military cemetery was allowed.¹¹ In order to prevent to the degree possible impairment to the uniformity of the tombstones it was decided to erect “two uniform tombstones, as per all the slain soldiers but on the tombstone of the father neither the IDF symbol nor a number would be inscribed… Rabbi Shaag [head of the council] and Colonel Orbach [the director of the division] would prepare the tombstone,” all this with a view to minimizing the exception.¹²

From “Died” to “Passed Away” Out of Consideration for the Parents of Suicides, and Adding the Category “Fell During Service” Alongside the council’s policy not to allow substantial deviations in the inscription, the director of the division expressed his belief that the inscriptions according to the predefined categories of death did not adequately correspond to reality. In response, the council did not rule out conducting a discussion that would deal with modifications as proposed by the division to the existing categories, but in practice no such discussion took place during those years. A few years later the Army as well requested a re-examination of the categories of death. Army spokespersons complained that they had not been involved in the decisions on this topic that had been adopted in the early 50s. But they added that one could assume that the Army would have consented to the decisions that were adopted, for “at that time they didn’t pay attention to whether the contents were fitting or not. The experience that had been accumulated in the interim was then lacking.”¹³ It would seem that over the years the Army as well had become an addressee for disgruntled parents who had been turned down by the council, and it sought to assist them. Hence at the close of 1960 the Public Council accepted an Army request to reopen a discussion on the category “died,” because petitions from bereaved parents had accumulated over the years at the IDF’s Wounded and Pensions Branch involving cases where their son had died a natural death. The parents contended “it was not possible that on the tombstone of a soldier 11 Subsequently the defense minister made a similar decision when a soldier and his wife were murdered in a terror attack in Jerusalem on 3.21.2000. Both were buried on Mount Herzl. 12 See protocols of the Public Council meeting (above, footnote 10). 13 RMA, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 11.12.1957; ibid., protocol of the Public Council meeting, 2.24.1961 – the source of the citation.

150 

 Preserving the Essential Uniformity

who died as a result of illness, there should be inscribed ‘died’ without an additional word of qualification, whereas on the tombstone of the soldier who died in non-battle related circumstances there should be inscribed ‘fell in the line of duty.’”¹⁴ These families felt deeply hurt, and in the Army’s opinion changing the text to “passed away during his military service,” or “died during his military service” was appropriate, whereas the inscription “died” by itself would be left for those who took their own lives.¹⁵ In a discussion that took place in the council in February 1961, the majority supported changing the inscription “died” to “passed away,” without the addition “during his military service” (as the Army had proposed), and without the distinction between the inscription “died” for suicides and the inscription “passed away” for someone who died a natural death, as the Army proposed. In this fashion the new inscription “passed away” encompassed both a natural death and suicide. There were a number of reasons for this decision. First, the inscription “passed away” would grant some compensation to the complainant families, but in this fashion uniformity would be preserved and parents of the suicides would be spared additional injury. Secondly the distinction between the category of “passed away” (for someone who died a natural death) and the category “died” (for the suicides) and the addition of the words “during his military service” to the word “passed away” would create clear discrimination against those who died a natural death and on whose tombstone the word “died” had already been inscribed. The avoidance of discrimination would perforce require changing the tombstones that had been laid before the decision on a change had been taken. The council was vigorously opposed to changing the tombstones.¹⁶ As opposed to the majority opinion – the opinion that was adopted and ratified by the minister – the minority on the council believed that there was no room for any change. Their principal argument was fear of setting a precedent in terms of the council’s consent to demands by parents for changing the uniform text.¹⁷

14 See above the three categories that were set in 1953, one of which was “died,” and it comprised cases of natural deaths and suicides. 15 During the years 1949-1961 the number of those who died of natural causes totaled 159, while the number of suicides during that period totaled 132 (8% of the total fallen, including the Sinai Campaign). As aforesaid, on the tombstones of both it was written “died.” On this see AA, file 1967/93/180, M. Orbach to the head of the Army Manpower Branch in the Defense Ministry, 6.15.1961. 16 Ibid., file 1967/93/180, M. Orbach to the head of the Army Manpower Branch in the Defense Ministry, 6.1.1961. Appended is a letter from A. Wurm, the head of the Casualties Division; RMA, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 2.15.1961. 17 The protocol in RMA (above, footnote 16).

From “Died” to “Passed Away” Out of Consideration for the Parents of Suicides 

 151

Subsequently, as we shall see below, the words “during his service” were added to the category “passed away.” Nonetheless the issue of the inscription on the tombstones of suicides was frequently brought up for discussion in the council and the subcommittee during the 60s and even later. First it emerged that not every case of apparent suicide was actually ruled a suicide at the end of the investigations pursued by the military authorities. In some cases the Army ruled that there was doubt about the suicide. For that reason the council had to prescribe a suitable inscription for such cases. Therefore in addition to the three existing categories (“fell in battle,” “fell in the line of duty” and “passed away”) a new category “fell at the time of service” was created, and the category “passed away” continued to serve both certain suicide cases and cases of natural death as well.¹⁸ However, the families of the suicides or questionable suicides (according to the Army’s findings) were not satisfied with these formulas: “The parents want to find an inscription on the tombstone where it will be written ‘in the performance of duty’ in any such case. They dispute the very fact that this was a suicide.” An example of this was submitted to the council for decision in early 1970: “A person was found killed in his father’s office, the first assumption was suicide. After receipt of the conclusions of the investigating judge, they wrote ‘fell at the time of service’ on the tombstone. The father did not agree and requested that it should be written ‘fell in the line of duty.’” The subcommittee turned down the request, and therefore the issue was referred to the plenum. The plenum sustained the decision of the subcommittee, and one of the members, who was also a subcommittee member, explained: “Where we could be lenient this was done. [But] it is an insult to the other parents whose sons really fell in the line of their duty.”¹⁹ The Sinai Campaign and Six-Day War did not create changes in the number of petitions by parents for exceptions to the uniform inscription formula nor in their characteristics. The petitions that arrived as result of the Six-Day War generally dealt with the name of the war. After the Sinai Campaign the formula “fell in the Sinai battle” was adopted but now the defense establishment was in no rush to formulate the text, and “We get various petitions from the bereaved families, and every petition is different. One proposes that we should inscribe ‘fell in the Six-Day War,’ or ‘fell in the War of the Children of Light’ or ‘fell in the War of 5727.’” Since the Division for Commemorating the Soldier wanted to persevere in “preserving the uniformity of the military cemeteries, both in building the 18 AA, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 2.2 1970. We have not managed to ascertain the exact date when the decision on this category was adopted, but from the protocol on 2.2.1970 it emerges that the decision was made apparently during the latter half of the 60s. 19 Ibid. – the source of all the citations.

152 

 Preserving the Essential Uniformity

grave as well as the shape of the military tombstone and the texts inscribed on it,” it requested in mid-July 1967 from the senior echelons of the Defense Ministry to establish the official name of the war so one can precede with engraving the inscription and setting the tombstones.²⁰ Subsequently the official name of the war was established as the “Six-Day War.”

Authorizing the Notation of the Profession “Pilot” and Service in the Navy

Fig. 32: The inscription on a pilot’s tombstone. Source: Supreme Court Archives.

In March 1968, the council accepted the request of the Air Force command to note the military profession, i.e., “pilot,” on the tombstones of pilots who have fallen. Although military professions had not been noted on the tombstones and this represented a deviation from uniformity, the unusual authorization for the Air Force was explained by an inability – at least in some cases – to ascertain the location where the pilot had fallen, and therefore “the notation pilot constitutes a form of substitute for denoting the place of death.” Similarly a request by the Navy (a result of a case that had occurred) to write the inscription “fell in the line 20 DMA, folder 2587, file 662, N. Dagoni to the director general of the Defense Ministry, 7.14.1967.

The Rise in the Number of Petitions 

 153

of duty in the Navy” was previously authorized and the reason was that “it was impossible to note on the grave of the fallen the place where he fell, as is customarily noted, and the use of the term ‘fell at sea’ did not seem aesthetic.”²¹

The Rise in the Number of Petitions by Relatives Following the War of Attrition, Adoption of “Liberal Uniformity” and Changing Decisions Regarding Place of Death The War of Attrition (1968-1970), dubbed in the deliberations of the Public Council for Commemorating the Soldier as the “war after the war,”²² led to a change in the pattern of family petitions. Now cases where parents requested deviations from the uniform text multiplied. Requests to note the exact place of death proliferated especially. (As may be recalled, in 1951 the committee had decided that the exact location of death would not be defined, save for the case where the soldier fell in a Jewish community and then they would write the name of the community and the name of the region. In case the soldier had fallen in an Arab community, the name of the region would be written in a general fashion. Only in special cases would the name of the Arab community be entered.) Likewise there were added requests for noting the civilian degree. The issue of the text that would be written on the tombstones of suicides again arose for discussion given the opposition by the parents both to “passed away” and to “fell during his service”; they continuously pressed for writing the text “fell in the line of duty.”²³ All this induced the council to hold a fundamental discussion on the issue of the inscription in September 1970 (immediately following the cease-fire and the end of the War of Attrition), and this discussion was the first fundamental discussion that took place in the council on this issue since 1955. Alongside veteran members who had served on the council since its establishment, such as Shimon Kushnir, Reuven Mass, and Reuven Avinoam (Grossman), there were now some relatively new members such as Major General Yosef Avidar, Dr. Haim Yahil, and the architect David Cassouto, who represented the bereaved children on the council. From a perusal of the protocol of the discussion it clearly emerges that council members did not have the council protocols from the 50s that contained the previous decisions of the council. 21 SIA, High Court of Justice 532/74, announcements on behalf of the state attorney general’s representative, 1.28.1975, p. 3. 22 AA, file 2849/97/150, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 9.1.1970. 23 Ibid. See also DMA, folder 7117, file 1770, S. Ben Moshe to M. Ardan, 7.13.1972, appending the letter from the Ardan family on 6.6.1972.

154 

 Preserving the Essential Uniformity

The core of the discussion surrounded the issue of noting the place of death, in the case of a soldier who fell in battle. Most of the members spoke of the need to consider the parents, but without distorting the truth and while preserving uniformity. It would appear that even the council veterans such as Kushnir and Mass had already grown emotionally fatigued from withstanding the families’ requests, as Kushnir put it: “You discover cases where the family is wounded, and is looking for a handhold, it appears that there is no power to withstand this and one has to see to what extent we can diminish this pain. A venerable tradition may exist but when a certain amount of pressure exists one has to decide again, there is no need for severity, one has to adopt the leniency of the House of Hillel rather than the severity of the House of Shamai. If the family doesn’t accept it one must be lenient.” Even Mass, who demanded adherence to things decided in the past, added that “in exceptional cases one must assuage the families and be flexible.” Yahil saw no reason not to go along with the parents’ request regarding the exact notation of the place of death, for in his opinion the previous basis for the decision of not noting the exact place of death derived from the fact “that actions took place across the border and therefore they didn’t want to note the places. But presently, this does not apply, but if it carries some significance for the family, why not carry out the wish of the family… there’s no reason to be cruel to the families [in cases] where there is no deviation from the truth. It’s possible to be flexible.” Council members Frischman and Shvat felt the same way but went further and argued that one should agree to the parents’ requests on the issue of the suicides as well, for from the parents’ perspective the issue had become a life-and-death question. They added that generally the motive for suicide was connected with the pressures of the Army: “Who knows why the soldier committed suicide, perhaps because of the atmosphere and tension that he experienced on the base… there was a time that they would persecute high school seniors who were delicate and could not take it and they committed suicide.” Frischman set guidelines that the council had to be cognizant of its decisions: “Our primary task also on the issue of erecting tombstones is to alleviate the suffering of the family to the extent possible. The further we are removed from our personal tragedy, our work becomes more objective and this is not a yardstick to judge other families. One has to sense this. The determining factor must be the ordinary person whom we are attempting to accommodate as much as possible.” Cassouto believed that noting the degree (Professor, Dr., engineer, etc.) actually conveyed the sense of IDF equality; especially as a tombstone had to fulfill the purpose of historic commemoration “and then this is impossible without additional personal details.” Towards the end of the discussion Avidar and Fink (the head of the Rehabilitation Branch) recommended striving for “liberal uniformity” [sic]: “to practice a liberal approach without severity. One balances the problem of feeling

The Rise in the Number of Petitions 

 155

versus logic. One seeks to preserve uniformity within the framework of a liberal approach and accommodating the families.” Nevertheless agreement on a certain point raised in the requests of the parents appearing before the committee had to apply also to families who had accepted the verdict and had not insisted on negotiations with the council. At the close of the discussion it was decided that henceforth the exact name of the location where the slain soldier had fallen would be noted save for special cases. The decision was taken in the spirit of the trend towards flexibility to the families, especially as this was not a substantial matter – particularly given the previous explanation by Yahil; it did not constitute an impairment to truth and equality, and there were already previous precedents to note the exact spot, such as in the case of the tombstones of those who fell in Gush Etzion and Latrun. Nevertheless it is clear that since this had not been performed in the case of tombstones that had been erected prior to the decision, it constituted a blot on uniformity. The council did not alter its policy either with respect to the inscription on the tombstones of the suicides or in terms of noting the secular date. The reverse is the case – it again upheld its policy with regards to the civilian degree: “We have agreed that there is no need for degrees and personal attributes.” Behind the decision to continue with the existing policy was the fear that a favorable response to the request to note the civilian degree, such as “Dr.” or “engineer”, would lead to requests for personal inscriptions and similar demands to those raised during the early days of the council “to write that he was a rabbi, and put on phylacteries every day, that he had three doctoral degrees…”²⁴ In the session that took place at the end of December 1970 the council reaffirmed its decisions regarding categories of death – the decisions from 1953, February 1961 and from the latter half of the 60s²⁵ – to the effect that “the council recognizes four versions denoting death: 1. fell in battle, 2. fell in the line of duty, 3. fell during his service, 4. passed away during his service.” Likewise it was decided that in the event of doubt regarding the category to which one case or another should be assigned, the decision would be entrusted to the Tombstone Subcommittee.²⁶ The case of the soldier Mordechai Ben Yitzhak from Beer Tuviah who was murdered as a POW by the Egyptians during the Yom Kippur War can provide a 24 See above, footnote 22 – the source of all the citations. 25 See above, p. 151, and footnote 18. 26 RMA, S. Seri to R. Mass, 12.1.1970 regarding the decisions of the Public Council on 12.1.1970. It is not clear if already prior to December 1970 it was decided to add to the fourth category the words “at the time of his service,” as in February 1961 as it may be recalled it was decided to retain solely the words “passed away.” See above, p. 151.

156 

 Preserving the Essential Uniformity

concrete example. His parents opposed the category “fell in the line of duty” and in the end result, with the parents’ consent, the text “fell while in enemy captivity during the Yom Kippur War” was inscribed.²⁷ The council did not introduce any change in these four categories of circumstances of death, did not add new categories nor did it reduce them – neither during the 70s nor the 80s. As we shall see below, changes would occur in these categories of death only during the 90s.

The Categories of Fatality are Republished and the Categories “Fell during His Service” and “Passed Away during His Service” are Rendered More Ambiguous In 1976 the Rehabilitation Branch – the branch in charge of the Division for Commemorating the Soldier – published directives regarding these four categories, where for the first time it provided maximum details regarding the cases encompassed by the first two categories. It seemed that the detail derived from the accumulated experience in the division. Below is a detail of the categories and the cases subsumed according to the text of the directives: 1. The category of “fell in battle” (including the obligation to note the place of death) refers to the following cases: battle, shelling and bombardment, killed by IDF forces, killed from the air by the enemy, encounter with the enemy, killed by a mine under battle conditions; 2. The category “fell in the line of duty” refers to the following cases: a weapons accident, killed by a weapon while not doing training, an aerial accident, a traffic accident while on duty, injured by natural forces, a work-related accident, a plane going down, drowning, mines while not in combat conditions, training accident; 3. The category “fell during his service” refers to the “fall of the deceased during his term of service excluding falling in battle and falling in the line of duty as detailed in the passages above”; 4. The category “passed away during his service” refers to “the deceased soldier’s dying during the period of his service in deviant circumstances and upon the authorization of the Tombstone Subcommittee alongside the Public Council.”²⁸ As opposed to the first two categories, the latter two categories remained obscure to a certain degree. As may be recalled the category of “fell during his 27 Yosef Ben Yitzhak, oral interview, Beer Tuviah Cemetery, 4.5.2002. 28 SCA, additional High Court of Justice deliberations file 3299/93 (as well as High Court of Justice file 5688/92), Directives of the Rehabilitation Branch no. 40.01b, 7.1.1976. It is further noted in those directives that a proposal on the wording of the inscription was to have been dispatched to the family at the end of the seven days of mourning.

Uniformity Faces Its First Test at the High Court of Justice 

 157

service” was added to cover cases of doubtful suicides, whereas the category of “passed away during his service” was intended for cases of both suicides and natural deaths. It is not clear why the latter two categories remained murky. Had the council desisted from engraving an identical inscription for suicides and for those who died a natural death, as it had decided at the time, and included those who died in natural death in the third category? Were the previous decisions of the council forgotten? And perhaps the experience that had accumulated over time militated in favor of leaving the last two categories deliberately murky, in order to enhance the division’s and council’s (or the subcommittee’s) freedom of action in the case of natural death and suicide or in the cases where the families appealed the text offered by the division, all this in consideration for the family? Was this stretching the “liberal uniformity” to the breaking point? We did not find written answers to these questions. Subsequently the category “fell during his service” was utilized also to cover the cases of those dying in tragic but non-service-related incidents during their military service, such as those who died at home as a result of an accident that occurred at home during their military service,²⁹ whereas the category “passed away” was also employed for other disgraceful cases, such as dying during a robbery or in the case of murder and suicide.³⁰ Subsequently we will learn about the problems posed by the category “fell during his service” and the parental resentment against it, which even prompted proposals by the Defense Ministry to rescind it. As stated, until the 90s no change took place in these four categories.

Uniformity Faces Its First Test at the High Court of Justice: The Petition to Allow Noting the Military Profession and Circumstances of Death is Turned Down, Setting a Precedent Regarding the Uniformity of Tombstones and Abolishing the Notation of the Profession “Pilot” A request for an exception on the inscription that the council could not address with “liberal uniformity” and that in the end result reached the High Court of Justice was also connected with the Yom Kippur War. This was a request directed to the Division for Commemorating the Soldier on the part of the Ben Zeev family that had lost a son, Sergeant Zohar Ben Zeev, at the beginning of the Yom Kippur 29 DMA, folder 6634, file 587, protocol of the Permanent Committee of the Public Council meeting, 1.29.1989, p. 3 , from the statement of Chairman of the Council H. Adar. 30 YLA, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 6.21.1992, from a statement by P. Yaron; ibid., protocol of the Public Council meeting, 8.17.1995, p. 10, from a statement by Y. Neeman; DFCSA, protocol of the Permanent Committee of the Public Council meeting, 4.14.1996, p. 38.

158 

 Preserving the Essential Uniformity

War at the Hamutal outpost in the central theater of the Suez Canal. The nub of the request was to add Zohar’s military profession, the circumstances and location of his death to the standard inscription in the following manner: “He fell as a member of the armored corps in the blocking battle near Ismailiya in the Sinai during the Yom Kippur War on October 8, 1973.”³¹ The request was accompanied by a commendation letter that Zohar’s commanders passed on to his parents already in December 1973. The letter emphasized “the role that Zohar faithfully and devotedly played, while displaying superior fighting qualities and professionalism. Thanks to him and thanks to his friends we managed to check the enemy’s attack and develop an attack that allowed us to regain the initiative.”³² This approach was a request for a substantial deviation from the norms, because it referred both to the military profession as well as to the circumstances of death, and therefore it was turned down by the division and turned over at the end of 1973 to the Tombstone Subcommittee. This dealt with the request in early 1974. The subcommittee agreed to note the place of death, in the manner that had already been established by the council in autumn 1970 regarding noting the location of death,³³ but it opposed the request to detail the military profession and circumstances of death. Members of the subcommittee were united in their opposition for the following reasons: Agreeing to this request would set a precedent for deviating from uniformity and equality, as hitherto military professions were not noted on the tombstones nor was the nature of the battles. “If with reference to the Yom Kippur War ‘blocking’ will appear on the tombstone of one of the fallen the others will be discriminated against… a woman for example appeared with a request to have the inscription note that the fallen was a devoted father and a devoted husband, there is no limit to personal inscriptions. The matter must be conducted by fixed guidelines.” One of the subcommittee members added that in a survey that he made of the military cemeteries he “was impressed by the uniform and concise formula demonstrating that all were equal. They do not note the nature of the battles such as ‘blocking,’ ‘attrition,’ etc.; where will all this lead? One must aspire to uniformity rather than non-uniformity. If there is a change it should not depart from the minimum framework.” Nevertheless there was no response to the Ben Zeev family’s argument that the profession “pilot” was already noted on the tombstones.³⁴ 31 SIA, High Court of Justice 532/74, N. and G. Ben Zeev to the Division for Commemorating the Soldier, 5.4.1974. 32 Ibid., Division Commander A. Yaffe to the Ben Zeev family, 12.17.1973. 33 See above, p. 154. 34 SIA (above, footnote 31), protocol of the Tombstone Subcommittee’s meeting, 6.16.1974. And see above, p. 152.

Uniformity Faces Its First Test at the High Court of Justice 

 159

Following this decision the head of the Division for Commemorating the Soldier made it clear to the Ben Zeev family that it was impossible to agree to their request and inscribe the circumstances of death and the professional military affiliation, but he allowed the family to request a hearing for its petition before the Public Council plenum.³⁵ The permanent committee of the council did convene and adopted the decision of the Tombstone Subcommittee. In the letters from the council chairman and the deputy head of the Rehabilitation Branch to the Ben Zeev family (as well as in the protocol of the Tombstone Subcommittee) it was emphasized: “The grave and military tombstone are also the property of the entire people, and this is the basis for the moral justification to demand uniformity in the shape of the grave and the text inscribed on the tombstone (families who prefer a civilian tombstone in a civilian cemetery are free to practice as they wish). The text and shape of the military grave have been crafted for 26 years by the Public Council of bereaved parents, while conducting deliberations and consultations with the relevant bodies…”³⁶ “The decisions of the council [in the Ben Zeev case] derive from the general directives that were established to preserve the uniform character of the tombstones for IDF deceased. These directives are likewise guided by considerations of avoiding interference with military terminology on subjects such as ‘a blocking battle,’ ‘a breakthrough battle,’ ‘a storming battle’ and perhaps even ‘a retreat battle.’ Likewise the directives are guided by abstention from attaching terms defining the role played by the dead soldier such as ‘member of the armored corps,’ ‘a member of the supply corps’ and ‘member of the intelligence branch.’”³⁷ In its distress the Ben Zeev family petitioned the High Court of Justice in December 1974 and requested a restraining order against the Public Council and the defense minister compelling them to explain their refusal to agree to the family’s request. Their attorney raised the following arguments to substantiate the request: First of all, a tour of the military cemeteries would reveal that the content of the text inscribed on the tombstones is not uniform. There are many deviations from the standard inscription content as offered by the Defense Ministry – for example: on one of the tombstones in Kiryat Shaul there appears “fell in a foreign land,” whereas on another tombstone in Nahlat Yitzhak the inscription appears in English. Furthermore, even if uniformity in the tombstone inscriptions existed, the content requested by the family does not, in his opinion, impair uniformity because it does not deviate from the concept, style and formulation of the words 35 Ibid., S. Seri to A. Boker, 9.12.1974; ibid., S. Seri to N. and G. Ben Zeev, 4.22.1974; the wording of the inscription that was submitted for engraving, 9.15.1974. 36 Ibid., S. Seri to N. and G. Ben Zeev, 5.24.1974. 37 Ibid., Y. Frischman to A. Boker, 12.1.1974.

160 

 Preserving the Essential Uniformity

inscribed on the tombstones of the fallen. Secondly the word twosome “blocking battle” does not essentially deviate from the word trio “Six-Day War” or from “fell in the line of duty” or “the Yom Kippur War” or “on the banks of the Suez Canal”; especially as it is the family’s wish that the words to be inscribed on the tombstone – and these are the things that will remain for posterity – should reflect their son’s conduct during the war and his heroism during the last moments of his life, as his commanders have noted. Thirdly, with regards to noting the military profession of Zohar – a member of the armored corps – the argument by the Public Council that the matter deviates from the accepted custom that avoids noting the military profession is incorrect, because on the tombstones of the pilots their military profession is inscribed and the profession “navy” similarly appears on tombstones (“fell in the line of duty in the Navy”).³⁸ Therefore the decision of the council not to note Zohar’s military profession constitutes “severe discrimination between one Army person and the next since they permit inscribing the military task of the one on his tombstone and do not allow it to another.” Fourthly, the refusal to agree to the family’s request in the name of uniformity “constitutes a severe impairment to individual liberty and elementary civic freedoms. This constitutes arbitrary intervention into freedom of conscience and civil rights” and a demand to waive one of the family members’ elementary rights to commemorate the dead as they see fit; on this matter the Supreme Court has already ruled in the past that “the citizen’s freedoms in a democratic country encompass, inter alia, the right to commemorate the memory of one’s forefathers in a manner that one sees fit,” and especially after the court has already ruled that a law that impinges on elementary human rights should be interpreted in a narrow fashion. Fifthly, the Public Council has no authority whatsoever to deal with the content of the inscription on the tombstones but only the shape of the tombstones and the form of the writing, since the ordinances to the law from 1956 authorized the council to set the “shape of the tombstones, the form of the inscription and the manner in which the inscription is performed.”³⁹ The Ben Zeev family argued that “‘the form of the inscription does not mean the contents but purely establishing the form.”⁴⁰ In early 1975 the government submitted its reply to the High Court of Justice relying on an affidavit submitted by the current director of the Division for Commemorating the Soldier, Shalom Seri.⁴¹ The state contended that every family was entitled to bury its fallen loved one in a civilian cemetery and inscribe on his 38 See above, p. 152, regarding notation of the profession “pilot” and the profession “navy.” 39 See above, p. 12. 40 See SIA (above, footnote 31), petition by the Ben Zeev family for issuing a restraining order, 12.30.1974. 41 Ibid., reply affidavit by the respondents, signed by S. Seri, 2.26.1975.

Uniformity Faces Its First Test at the High Court of Justice 

 161

tombstone there any text that it so desired. However, once the family had decided to bury its loved one in a military cemetery, it had to accept the standard texts, for “a military cemetery is from a legal standpoint state property, and from a moral standpoint – the properly of the entire people, and therefore within the framework of this cemetery, the rule that a person is entitled to inscribe on the tombstone whatever his heart desires does not apply… is the council indeed obligated to authorize any request submitted to it, whatever the contents may be?” For that very same reason, the affidavit stated, the state had turned down other deviant requests in the past. Regarding the refusal to inscribe the military profession of the late Zohar the state explained that this was predicated on the policy of omitting the profession for security considerations and for the reason that there are fallen who belong to the auxiliary and service branches “for whom there is great doubt if the bereaved parents would be interested in knowing about these on the tombstones.” In this matter, the notation of the profession on some of the tombstones and refraining from noting them on others “could lead a visitor to a military cemetery to reach the conclusion that this fallen soldier presumably played in the army a more important or more honorable task than that played by another fallen soldier and that only the professions of more esteemed and laudable jobholders are noted. This could cause unfair discrimination among the various fallen and aggrieve the sentiments of families where the profession is not noted on the tombstones of their beloved, and even cause feelings of discrimination among these families.” Furthermore, bereaved families who previously submitted requests similar to the request of the Ben Zeev family and were turned down by the council will renew them if the request of the Ben Zeev family will elicit a favorable response from the council, “and as a result the uniform character of the tombstones will be marred.” As for noting the profession “pilot” the state presented a very weak argument to the effect that “at least in some of the cases it is impossible to know the place of death, and therefore the notation ‘pilot’ is a sort of substitute for noting the place of death,” and likewise the inscription “fell in the line of duty in the Navy” occurs because it is impossible to know the location of death. Since the state was aware that its explanations were flimsy regarding noting the profession “pilot,” it did not hesitate to inform the court that it was preferable “that the court rule… to desist from the practice of noting ‘pilot’ on the tombstones, rather than instruct it [the state] to note other professions purely for the reason that a custom had been adopted to note the profession ‘pilot.’” The state also viewed the notation of circumstances of death as discriminatory, for “noting the nature of the battle where this person fell and refraining from noting the way another person fell can be construed as an insult to the other person and his bereaved family.” This is especially the case since the term “block-

162 

 Preserving the Essential Uniformity

ing battle” is not an official description by the IDF “and the council could not assume the role of appraising this battle or another employing a strategic and an historical evaluation and term it a ‘blocking’ battle, ‘retreat,’ ‘storming’ and the like.” Let us add that the state totally rejected the argument of the Ben Zeev family that the Public Council was not authorized to deal with the contents of the inscription but purely with its form, for the “form of the inscription” that appears in the ordinances and which the council has been authorized to discuss, explicitly refers to the contents of the writing. Alternatively: “Even if the council is not authorized to decide on the matter of the contents of the tombstone, the minister of defense is so authorized to decide on this question and he is entitled to embrace the opinion of the council, even if it does not have a statutory role in this matter.”⁴² In the beginning of February 1975 a High Court of Justice panel comprising of Justices Yoel Zussman, Alfred Vitkon and Moshe Etzioni convened, and after hearing the arguments of the petitioners and the response by the state it issued a temporary injunction summoning the defense minister and Public Council to appear before the court and explain “why they will not agree to the petitioners’ request and inscribe on their son’s tombstone contents that they seek.”⁴³ Two months later the High Court of Justice convened with a panel comprised of Justices Moshe Landau, Zvi Berenson and Alfred Vitkon and with the consent of both parties the justices decided that before they discussed the request of the state to set aside the temporary injunction and issue their ruling the Public Council for Commemorating the Soldier would hold a discussion on the topic of the petition and formulate its position. The justices’ decision was accepted after the family turned down a compromise proposal by the court to abolish the exceptional notation of the military profession “pilot” on the tombstones.⁴⁴ At the end of April 1975 the council assembled for a special discussion – for the first time in its history as a result of a court order. An atmosphere of tension and stupefication prevailed in the discussion caused by the very fact that a suit had been lodged against the council. It is interesting that aside from a question posed by a single member, the question of what accounted for the resolve behind the family’s demand to the point that it was ready to petition the High Court of Justice did not arise during the discussion, although families had previously been turned down by the council when they sought to institute changes and they had 42 Ibid., announcement from a representative of the attorney general, 1.28.1975 – the source of all the citations. 43 Ibid., the court’s decision, 2.3.1975. 44 Ibid., the court’s decision, 4.10.1975.

Uniformity Faces Its First Test at the High Court of Justice 

 163

never pressed their demands to the portals of the High Court of Justice. Architect David Cassouto, a council member, responded to the un-asked question according to his own perspective: “To our sorrow we are living through a major social crisis, where the desire to express one’s individualism overcomes consideration for the collective.” It is interesting that such an explanation – customarily attributed to the demands presented from the 80s onwards for amending the text formula on the tombstones – was cited already in the period following the Yom Kippur War. In any event, almost all council members adopted the decision of the Tombstone Subcommittee and the permanent committee; in this matter they also protested previous deviations, even those that had been authorized by the council. In particular, the council expressed dissatisfaction with noting the profession “pilot.” One member did not hesitate to say that pressures applied by the Air Force were involved.⁴⁵ The council issued a firm decision: “The council is aware that previously there were deviations in the inscriptions on the tombstone (‘pilot,’ ‘Navy,’ ‘doctor’), but insists that in principle neither the military branch affiliation nor a description of the battle in which the soldier fell should be noted, and in the future there will be no further deviations and the uniformity of the text will be preserved.”⁴⁶ In summer 1975, the defense minister adopted the decision after the Army had also ratified it.⁴⁷ The fear of impairing the value of equality and uniformity, aggrieving other parents, creating dangerous precedents and bursting the dam if the request by the Ben Zeev family were accepted – all these prompted comments in the council on the need to abolish the special privilege awarded the Air Force. (“…One should determine unequivocally: There has to be uniformity and there’s no room for deviations, all are equal… the togetherness must prevail rather than individualism… it is not permissible that deviations should occur… the IDF has hundreds of professions… There are soldiers who are ashamed of their profession, a cook for example. This is a very sensitive subject. The decision ‘fell as a pilot’ wasn’t a good one. It is not the authority of the Air Force commander to decide this… one should be very strict about noting professions… the deviation ‘fell as a pilot’ is very striking. Why should one write ‘fell as a pilot’ and not ‘as an engineer,’ if during the war the engineer constructed bridges and was killed?...”) From a practical standpoint, too, there was no way to accept the family’s request for “to our sorrow many members of the armored corps have fallen and there will be a need to change many scores of tombstones.”

45 Ibid., protocol of the Public Council meeting, 4.27.1975. 46 AA, file 399/85/229, A. Gorni to the defense minister, 7.14.1975. 47 Ibid., A. Bartal to the head of the Army Manpower Division office, 8.15.1975.

164 

 Preserving the Essential Uniformity

Noting the circumstances of death, as the family demanded, was also rejected by the council for the same reasons of uniformity, equality and the fear of insulting other fallen and their families: “Regarding the text ‘blocking battle,’ there is not a single tombstone where this detail is noted. There is no mention of: ‘breakthrough battle,’ ‘terrorist assassination,’ ‘traffic accident,’ etc. Noting ‘blocking battle’ opens the gate to noting the way in which soldiers die and this must be avoided… one must not delve into the forms of the battle because sometimes there is a retreat for the purpose of a breakthrough. How can one define something like this... if we write fell in ‘the blocking battle’ what should a family whose son fell in a ‘retreat’ battle say. In every decision one should see the whole and the collective entirety of the bereaved families.” Only Sam Avital, one of the council’s newer members, favored assenting to the family’s request and noting the military profession of the son, for in his opinion the wishes of the fallen soldier’s family took precedence over the value of uniformity, especially as a number of precedents already existed: “There is no uniformity on the matter of the soldier and his profession on the tombstones. At the cemetery in Kiryat Shaul I encountered that on the tombstones the professions ‘Dr., Navy, pilot’ are noted.” One “should accord primary place to the condition of the bereaved families. A pilot fell and in his plane there was a paratrooper. On the tombstone of the pilot there is mention of his profession, but this is not the case with a paratrooper who was killed together with the pilot. This cannot be. One should consider the sensitivity of the families and one should consider precedents. I recommend establishing a list of professions whose names can be noted on the tombstones. I do not want to abolish the notation ‘pilot’ and request not to be tied by other discussions.”⁴⁸ Nevertheless it should be noted that Avital did not pay attention to the existing internal contradiction in his argument to extend preference to the wishes of the Ben Zeev family over the principle of uniformity, for consideration of certain families would wound other families as the inscription on the tombstones of their beloved had already been engraved. In early November 1975 the High Court of Justice publicized its ruling. The justices decided to say that although they were in agreement with the petitioners that one should not limit the rights of relatives to act according to their feelings and desires, they could not sustain the family’s petition. In their opinion, from the moment the council, that was duly authorized by law to set ordinances on the issue, had declared itself (in other words, had seized upon the principle of uniformity) – one could not appeal its position, for the family elected to have its son buried in the military cemetery and had to make peace with the arrangement established by the majority on the Public Council. 48 See above, footnote 45 – the source of all the citations.

Uniformity Faces Its First Test at the High Court of Justice 

 165

In a series of explanations the High Court of Justice rejected the position of the Ben Zeev family that the term “form of the inscription” that the council was authorized to set did not refer to the contents of the inscription but solely to its shape. It ruled decisively that the council was indeed authorized (by power of the ordinances) to deliberate and decide on the content of the inscription. “We have no doubt,” ruled the justices, “that ‘the form of the inscription’ [as in ordinance number 3 in the 1956 ordinances that determines that the council would advise the minister on ‘determining the shape of the tombstones, the form of the inscription and the manner in which the inscription is performed’] does not only refer to the shape of the letters but precisely to what appears in writing on the tombstone… the term ‘form’ is not always intended to create a distinction from the concept of content. For example in common parlance… we tend to speak of this or another ‘form of expression’ when we actually mean the content of the matter…” likewise the High Court of Justice accepted the Public Council’s explanations regarding uniformity, because they were based on the idea of uniformity that Justice Minister Rosen had originally spoken of when he introduced the law. As may be recalled the minister said inter alia that “the military cemeteries must convey the concept that all those who fell in the war were partners to one objective – and this mandates a certain degree of uniformity. I have yet to see a military cemetery where the shape of the tombstones was variegated. The military cemeteries are predicated on a uniform principle, on whose behalf all devoted and gave their lives to the common goal.” The High Court of Justice also accepted the Public Council’s explanations regarding the avoidance of discrimination emphasizing that “these are sensible words on a topic of the utmost sensitivity.” The High Court of Justice was troubled that the Air Force has been granted the privilege of noting the profession on the tombstones of the pilots, and this had occasioned discrimination between one soldier and the next, but it embraced with satisfaction the clarification made by the attorney for the defense minister and the Public Council that in the future the notation “pilot” would no longer be inscribed and the same applied to any other military profession whatsoever on the graves of soldiers buried in military cemeteries.⁴⁹ Prior to this, internal discussions took place in the IDF and between the IDF and the Defense Ministry, for the justices of the High Court of Justice sought to ascertain if the council’s position was acceptable to the Air Force. However, the current commander of the Air Force, Benny Peled, rejected the council’s position and in response to a question of the military advocate general stated that “a person with a fighting profession that by nature is a voluntary one is worthy of note and in my opinion

49 SIA (above, footnote 31), the court’s decision, 10.29.1975 – the source of all the citations.

166 

 Preserving the Essential Uniformity

the custom [re the inscription ‘pilot’] is fair and proper.”⁵⁰ The head of Army manpower decided the issue and aligned the IDF position with the recommendations of the council. Thus the custom to inscribe “pilot” on the tombstones of fallen pilots was terminated.⁵¹ The Ben Zeev High Court of Justice case, as it was subsequently referred to, therefore established a legal ruling for the first time regarding the uniformity of the tombstones. With this background the defense establishment and the Justice Ministry sought to anchor the principle of the uniformity of tombstones in the legal corpus – something that could not be inferred totally and explicitly from the law,⁵² for the relevant passage of the law – subparagraph 5(b) – sufficed by determining that the form and dimensions of a military tombstone would be determined by a certified officer; “On the other hand this passage does not explicitly deal with other details pertinent to the tombstone such as the content and the text that will be set for the tombstone.” Therefore, pursuant to the ruling by the High Court of Justice the Defense Ministry prepared between the years 1975-1980 a draft of a law in order to clarify that the person so authorized by the defense minister would have the authority to determine the manner, the content, the text and the uniformity of the inscription on the tombstone, in consultation with the Public Council for Commemorating the Soldier. Subparagraph 5(b) to the original law was to be erased, and in its stead the following version would appear: “The dimensions and the form of the military tombstone and the manner, contents and

50 AA, file 399/85/229, B. Peled to the Army advocate general, 5.25.1975. 51 Above, footnote 46; AA, file 399/85/229, M. Aluf to the Army advocate general, 7.14.1975; above, footnote 47; AA, file 399/85/229, E. Rubinstein to H. Yisraeli, 12.1.1975; DMA, folder 4939, file 3, S. Peres to the chief of staff, 12.8.1975, appended is the letter of the defense establishment legal advisor A. Gorni to the defense minister regarding the engraving of details on the tombstones of IDF dead, 7.14.1975; DMA, folder 7322, file 845, letter from H. Yisraeli to the legal advisor of the defense establishment, 8.18.1975; ibid., E. Rubinstein to Y. Shahaf, 11.4.1976; AA, file 2849/97/251, unanimous conclusions by the head of the Army Manpower Division and the head of the Casualty Division, 10.15.1978. See also YLA, protocol of the Permanent Commission of the Public Council’s meeting, 12.6.1987 where the chairman of the Tombstone Subcommittee P. Yaron related that representatives of the Air Force appeared before the council and “demanded something regarding the pilots and then we asked them: tell us would you be requesting the same attitude for a cook in the Air Force? With this response the discussion concluded because there was no response to this.” 52 In the words of N. Rashba, the representative of the Defense Ministry during the deliberations of the Ministerial Committee on Legislation: “We have reached the conclusion that we must institutionalize this principle in law and that it should be stated explicitly and therefore the proposed amendment was offered.” On this topic see: SIA, 2002A, vol. 1, 13208, protocol of the Ministerial Committee on Legislation, 1.8.1980, p. 15.

Uniformity Faces Its First Test at the High Court of Justice 

 167

text of the inscription on it and the uniformity would be determined by the person so authorized by the defense minister in consultation with the Public Council.”⁵³ The proposal for amending the law never reached the stage of a draft legislation submitted by the government to the Knesset for discussion.⁵⁴ It would appear that the reason behind this was the difficulty of defining in primary legislation the concept of “uniformity.” Indeed over the course of the deliberations in the ministerial committee for legislative affairs that convened to discuss the draft proposal in January 1980, Justice Minister Shmuel Tamir observed the problematic nature of the concept “uniformity.” He argued the following: “It should be written: ‘uniformity to the extent possible,’ or something of the sort, because there is no total uniformity, in any event in the existing tombstones there is no total uniformity. There are versions: ‘fell in battle,’ ‘died of illness,’ there are places that state which battle, there are places that do not state which battle… it is impossible to say that the uniformity will be set by somebody authorized. Either there is uniformity or there is not uniformity. One should say uniformity, to the extent possible, for uniformity does not exist: if the person is an IDF member – then there is the IDF symbol; if he is a member of the underground – then there is also the underground symbol, that very same underground to which he belonged to and this is a very sensitive matter… size and the essential matters can be uniform…”⁵⁵ The affair of the Ben Zeev High Court of Justice petition did not conclude as could be expected, that is by implementing the decisions by the justices. For a certain period the pillow was not set (according to the practice in cases where agreement has not been reached between the family and the Defense Ministry regarding the version of the inscription).⁵⁶ Later on the relatives apparently worked to inscribe on the tombstone the entire text that they had demanded from the very outset of the affair. Subsequently attorney Yaakov Neeman would make use of this in the High Court of Justice petition of the Wechselbaum family, that 53 SIA, ibid., E. Weizman to the cabinet secretary, 12.20.1979, appended is the memorandum on the proposed Cemetery Law (amendment), 5740-1979; DMA, folder 4939, file 3, A. Lischansky to the defense minister, 3.26.1980, regarding the decision of the Ministerial Committee on Legislation on 3.25.1980 to confirm the essentials of the memorandum of the draft legislation. And see the comments of the director of the Department for Commemorating the Soldier Y. Shahaf to amend the wording in a manner that paragraph 5 (b) to the law would be called “Setting the Shape of the Tombstones, Content, Text of the Wording and the Manner of Writing on Them and Their Uniformity.” 54 And compare Official Documents: Legislative Proposals, no. 1455, 5.19.1980, pp. 223-224, where the amendment regarding the uniformity of contents and the inscription on the tombstones is missing. 55 Protocol of the Ministerial Committee on Legislation’s meeting (above, footnote 52), p. 15. 56 AA, file 399/85/229, E. Rubinstein to the director of the Defense Minister’s office, 12.1.1975, paragraph 4.

168 

 Preserving the Essential Uniformity

also petitioned on the issue of the inscription⁵⁷: “The Supreme Court in its current makeup decided that one should not allow the family [Ben Zeev] to do this. However they did not meet the terms even after the Supreme Court had issued its decision and whoever visits his grave, [will see that] it is written explicitly despite the verdict of the Supreme Court, on a standard tombstone of the Division for Commemorating the Soldier and I quote: ‘Zohar Ben Zeev son of Nehama and Gideon fell as a member of the armored corps in the blocking battle in the Sinai during the Yom Kippur War.’ It’s a fact, that in spite of this verdict, it remains to this very day because the family wanted to express something.”⁵⁸ As we shall see below, a demand by parents to note the details of the death would recur in the following years as well. Over time a practice took shape in the Division for Commemorating the Soldier to receive the authorization of the slain soldier’s family for the inscription before the inscription was engraved on the tombstone. In the event that the family disputed the formulation and did not authorize the alternative version decided upon by the council following the appeal, it was established policy not to complete the tombstone without the family’s consent.⁵⁹

57 See p. 209 ff. 58 SCA, Additional High Court of Justice Deliberations 3299/93, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 5.29.1994, p. 5. 59 SIA (above, footnote 31), reply by the respondents, p. 1, paragraph 3, 3.30.1975.

Chapter 7 Uniformity is Tested by an Era of Polarization The Public Council versus Petitions by the Families to the High Court of Justice Demanding Substantial Changes in the Uniform Inscription (the early 80s until the early 90s) From the early 80s, in other words from the Peace for Galilee campaign (the First Lebanon War), an increase in the number of requests by families of the deceased for making changes in the uniform inscription was recorded. These years were marked by parental requests for substantial deviations, and these requests were accompanied by an immense and discernible resolve by the parents to ensure that their requests were fulfilled. One expression of this resolve was mutual organization by the families to secure the desired changes. Likewise the readiness on their part to be persuaded by the fundamental justice of uniformity and accept the verdict of the Public Council was increasingly attenuated. In fact, during this period three cases reached a High Court of Justice decision. Only one concluded in a compromise between the petitioner and the Defense Ministry – a compromise that contravened the original position of the Council. However, “in most cases the families were persuaded to preserve the existing standard on the tombstones, and the inscription written on them, and drop their requests.”¹ The families’ resolve also found expression in the heavy emotional pressures that they applied upon members of the Public Council to the point of suicide threats if their request was not fulfilled; the council, out of a sense of inner conviction in the correctness of its path and out of consideration for the common good, made every effort to maintain its principles, mainly the principle of uniformity and equality between the tombstones, preventing precedents and curtailing former precedents.² “The principle that guides us is the state’s interest and the general one encompassing the entire spectrum of the fallen, in other words if we are dealing with the concept of uniformity, if we are speaking about the concept of equality among the fallen, if we are speaking about matters that we must decide upon, then we must only consider the general good. It is true that each soldier who falls is one of a kind, one to a family, one to a place of residence, one to a state, to our great misfortune there are about 16,000 of these individuals 1 DMA, folder 44823, file 222, letter from Z. Litvin to E. Haber, 12.2.1992, appended are the decisions of the Public Council on 12.2.1992. See also ibid., folder 1624, file 1315, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 12.2.1992, p. 63, from the statement by D. Giladi. 2 See for example DMA, folder 50721, file 3, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 6.30.1987, p. 13, from the statement by council Chairman H. Adar.

170 

 Uniformity is Tested by an Era of Polarization

and this is what probably confers the gravitas upon our way of thinking.”³ “We [council members] are all bereaved parents but beyond this we have the duty to view the cemeteries or the commemoration of soldiers in a manner that will allow us [to take from] the entire range of the spectrum… and see something common, and according to the rules and guidelines that we make.”⁴ At the close of the period under discussion in this chapter we witness the beginning of a new era in the history of the council and in the history of the principles guiding the inscription on the military tombstone: The High Court of Justice pronounces a ruling that is opposed to the council’s position – the first sign of its weakening against the demands of the families and also of a decline in the general public’s acceptance that expressing the general good, as represented by the council, should take precedence over individual expression. The council was most painfully aware of these trends, and according to one of its members in 1990: “Are there more frequent criticisms lately about what was agreed upon in the past?... most definitely there are, and there is more to come as we can gauge from expressions of public opinion in the newspapers,”⁵ but the council not only wanted to avoid being dragged along by the current but it wanted to stop it.⁶ Detailed below are the principle demands for changes that the council confronted.

Mentioning the Name of the Biological Father in the Case of an Adopted Fallen Soldier At the end of January 1983 Lieutenant Z (the name is fictitious) put an end to herself during her military service. Her mother and stepfather wanted the Division for Commemorating the Soldier to inscribe her name and the name of her mother’s family following her second marriage on her tombstone and only the personal name of her stepfather as well. They vigorously opposed mentioning her biological father: neither his first nor his family’s name. The reason behind the request was the contention of the pair that Z grew up as a daughter in all respects to her stepfather since she was a year and a half old, when he married her mother, and since the age of two she had no contact with her biological father: the latter 3 YLA, protocols of the Permanent Committee of the Public Council meeting, 12.6.1987, p. 4, from the statement by Council Chairman H. Adar. 4 SIA, High Court of Justice 1438/91, protocol of the Permanent Committee of the Public Council meeting, 3.8.1990, p. 44, from the statement by Council Chairman H. Adar. 5 Ibid., p. 39, from the statement of A. Yahel. 6 Protocol of the Permanent Committee meeting (above, footnote 4).

Mentioning the Name of the Biological Father 

 171

did not take an interest in her ever since, stopped visiting her and didn’t try to establish contact with her. On the eve of her induction Z wanted to get acquainted with her biological father and even met him, but she encountered “a person who mocked her feelings. After her death they found among her papers a letter that Z had written to her father [and hadn’t reached its address] that exemplifies the father’s callous behavior and his inhuman attitude to her.” Furthermore Z herself always used the family name of her mother and her stepfather, and when she was 18 years old she officially changed her name in the Interior Ministry.⁷ Z’s biological father requested that on Z’s tombstone they should inscribe only the names of her biological parents (the first and the family name), with a separation between the mother’s name and the father’s name. He offered a totally different version about the tenor of relations as compared to what was described above: “Z was in contact with me and met me despite the pressures and threats that she shouldn’t have any contact with me. She established ties indirectly without her parents’ knowledge because she feared they would find out. When she needed advice or money I would fulfill her requests but all these connections were accompanied by apprehension that it should not become known to the other side… the name [of Z was changed by her] under duress.”⁸ This was the first time that the Division for Commemorating the Soldier had encountered such a complex incident where it had to decide between the conflicting demands of the closest relatives to the fallen. The director of the division had no alternative but to convene the Tombstone Subcommittee so that it could decide on the issue.⁹ It was clear to the committee that Z’s family name that would be inscribed on the tombstone would be her last family name, because this was her family name at the time of her death. Regarding the names of the parents, the committee adopted the position of the biological father in March 1983. This was appealed by the mother and stepfather, who did not agree that the name of the stepfather should be totally omitted and likewise they did not agree to mention the biological father’s family name. Nevertheless the family backtracked from its original request and now demanded the text “the daughter of A and N [the stepfather] – L [one of the two personal names of the biological father].”¹⁰ This demand was based on similar precedents that the family located in the military cemetery at Kiryat Shaul; if the name of the biological father was inscribed, only his first name was inscribed, and in no case was an additional family name written 7 SIA, High Court of Justice 556/83, letter of the mother and stepfather to the Department for Commemorating the Soldier, undated. 8 Ibid., protocol of the Tombstone Subcommittee of the Public Council, 2.15.1983. 9 Ibid. 10 Ibid.; ibid., protocol of the Tombstones Subcommittee, 4.20.1983.

172 

 Uniformity is Tested by an Era of Polarization

alongside the family name of the slain soldier. For this reason the couple claimed that the addition of the biological father’s family name on the tombstone would constitute discrimination, deviation from precedents and a departure from the principle of uniformity that had already been handed down in the Ben Zeev High Court of Justice case.¹¹ Due to the appeal the Tombstone Subcommittee held an additional discussion in April of that year. This time as well the committee intended to take the side of the biological father and believed that one should not deny him the right of writing his name on the tombstone. But it could not ignore the demands of the biological mother and her husband, for “here we have the case of a stepfather who took care of the girl from an early age – from childhood and lavished devoted care upon her.” A short while later the committee chairman explained its position in detail, in the following words: “The name of the natural father has to appear. The natural father even if he is a criminal is a natural father, he never waived that right. [The stepfather] did not adopt her and therefore it was decided that the name of the natural father should appear on the tombstone. Since the stepfather raised her for 16 years it was decided that despite everything his name should also appear on the tombstone. Regarding [the family name of the biological father], the name of the father’s family is after the name of the father’s brother who fell during the War of Independence and this name carries a special importance for the father, especially as only three months have elapsed since Z officially changed her name to the family name of the stepfather.”¹² The desired solution therefore in the committee’s opinion was a text that notes the name of both fathers and the names of both families. This decision was submitted to the mother and stepfather and they were granted the right to appeal the decision.¹³ The mother and stepfather could not reconcile themselves to the committee’s decision. Mentioning the full name and the family name of the biological father on the tombstone was something they could not bear. Mutual accusations were exchanged between the two families over the years regarding Z’s condition; these accusations were especially germane to responsibility for her psychological deterioration and her tragic demise.¹⁴ “There is no doubt,” the couple wrote to the council:

11 Ibid., letters of the mother and stepfather to the Public Council, 5.11.1983, 5.17.1983. 12 Ibid., protocol of the Tombstone Subcommittee, 4.20.1983 – source of the first citation; ibid., protocol of the joint meeting of the Tombstone Subcommittee and the Permanent Committee, 6.16.1983 – the source of the second citation. 13 Ibid., letter from the mother and stepfather to the Public Council, 5.11.1983. 14 See above, footnote 11.

Mentioning the Name of the Biological Father 

 173

There is no doubt that the estrangement of [the biological father] to the deceased, compounded and caused her severe and profound psychological distress, that brought about such a tragic end… out of brazenness [the biological father] petitioned demanding recognition as a bereaved father. Such recognition will award him material benefits and in light of the circumstances this constitutes a mockery of every ethical value, conscience and justice… our home is destroyed, we are psychologically and physically maimed, bereavement is our lot and the text that the committee has prescribed compounds the grief with mental anguish. This text will inflict upon us more injustice than ever. Our remaining spiritual powers are sustained by our belief that this is what the deceased wished, and it is our joint obligation and privilege to see that her desire and ours should be put forward before every person and tribunal so justice can come to light and the truth will be told in public view… the written word cannot express the full force of our feelings and sensitivity to the total iniquity that can be caused to the deceased and to ourselves – her family members. It is not possible that iniquity can give rise to right.¹⁵

Due to the appeal of the mother and stepfather, the intervention of senior Defense Ministry personnel and the defense minister’s acceptance of the appeal, the Tombstone Subcommittee held a joint session with the Permanent Committee of the Council during the month of June 1983, with the participation of the families and their legal counsel.¹⁶ However, these meetings did not produce a breakthrough either. They were merely outbursts of emotion on the part of both families and “blind hatred,”¹⁷ as one committee member termed it. The mother, emotional and determined, argued that “I gave birth to her for better or for worse and I’ll decide what’s written on the tombstone, otherwise there will be no tombstone! He’s not worthy to be a father!” The stepfather requested that the committee consider the future suffering that his wife would endure her entire life when she would come to visit the grave and would see the name and family name of the biological father inscribed on the tombstone. He further explained that any decision by the council that does not consider the future is not an ethical decision. The biological father described to the committee his terrible suffering given the efforts to expunge any mention of his name from the tombstone and expressed his anguish when he found out that the flowers and vases that he had laid on the grave had vanished. He presented a precedent from 1959 where Chief Army Chaplain Rabbi Shlomo Goren decided that one could not ignore the biological father’s name on the tombstone, and with great emotion he implored the committee members to seriously consider whether one of them “would be amenable to seeing on his son’s grave the name of a strange person as if he were the father of the son.” He further 15 See above, footnote 11, the first source. 16 Ibid., protocol of the joint meeting of the Tombstone Subcommittee and the Permanent Committee, 6.16.1983; ibid., protocol of the Permanent Committee meeting, 6.23.1983. 17 Ibid.

174 

 Uniformity is Tested by an Era of Polarization

added bitterly: “For how long will the suffering continue? If she had it so good at home what caused her to commit suicide? What induced her to attempt this twice beforehand?”¹⁸ The committee made it clear that with all its understanding for the sentiments of the mother and the stepfather, for logical, legal and public reasons it could not ignore the existence of the biological father.¹⁹ Furthermore, it was actually in the case of the stepfather that the committee was adopting a degree of generosity when it agreed to note his name as well on the tombstone.²⁰ When it became clear in summer 1983 that the families would not reach agreement and after a number of proposals were raised and dropped in the committee, the Tombstone Subcommittee and the Permanent Committee (with the agreement of the Council) adopted a final decision to engrave the parents’ names in the following fashion: Z and her last family name – on one line; “daughter of” – on a separate line; the name of the mother and the name of the family after the second marriage – on a separate line; the first name and the family name of the biological father – on a separate line; “raised in the home,” with the name of the mother and the name of the stepfather and their family name – on a separate line.²¹ This text accurately reflected the facts, but because of the extremely complicated situation, it was different and lengthier than any other text that had previously been written on the tombstone of an adopted soldier.²² However, as they had done previously, the mother and the stepfather made it clear that “we don’t agree that the text should incorporate in any manner whatsoever the name [the family name of the biological father] and therefore the text that has been determined by the Public Council is unacceptable to us.”²³ The firm decision by the defense establishment refusing to back down from the decisions of the council²⁴ led in the beginning of September to agreement by the mother and the stepfather to the text that the council had decided upon, accompanied by two reservations: the word “daughter” should be entered in a single line with the mother’s name and the last family name, and one of the personal names of the biological father would be erased.²⁵ However, the defense establishment would not agree to this.²⁶ Therefore the couple turned to the 18 Ibid. 19 Ibid. 20 Ibid. 21 Ibid., the director of the Department for Commemorating the Soldier to the stepfather and the biological father, 8.16.1983. 22 Ibid. 23 Ibid., letter from the stepfather to the Rehabilitation Branch, 8.22.1983. 24 Ibid., A. Fink to the stepfather, 9.5.1983. 25 Ibid., the stepfather to H. Adar. 26 Ibid., N. Schayek to the stepfather, 9.6.1983.

Mentioning the Name of the Biological Father 

 175

defense minister with a request that he employ his decision making powers and accept their original demand, in other words mentioning the personal name of the biological father alongside the personal name of the stepfather, without mentioning the family name of the biological father but only their name – which was also Z’s family name upon her death. At the very least the mother and stepfather were ready to content themselves with the request that they had submitted to the defense establishment in early September.²⁷ Two days after they had approached the defense minister and before they had received an answer the couple petitioned the High Court of Justice to obligate the defense minister to authorize their original request for the text of the inscription and reject the text of the inscription decided by the Public Council. Likewise they asked for the court’s intervention in postponing the scheduled date for erecting the tombstone. In their explanations they reiterated the details that we described previously, and likewise they appended to the petition a list of precedents corresponding to the text that they requested. Let it be noted that in their approach to the High Court of Justice, the couple refrained from noting that in practice they had already given their consent (save for a request for two minor changes) to the text that the council had established.²⁸ Subsequently, when a hearing on the petition was about to begin before the High Court of Justice, the defense minister endorsed the decision of the Public Council. In the beginning of 1984, the petition was heard before Justices Meir Shamgar, Yehuda Cohen and Yaakov Turkel. The position of the defense minister and the Public Council for Commemorating the Soldier was summed up in an affidavit by Pinhas Yaron, the chairman of the council’s Tombstone Subcommittee. Yaron rejected the mother’s claim that she had the right to determine which names would be inscribed on the tombstones, because we were dealing with a military cemetery that was subject to the authority of the defense minister acting according to the recommendations of the Public Council. “Logic dictates that this should be the case for otherwise who would be the arbiter in disputes between parents, or their descendants, or between the widower or the widow and the parents or the descendents? Would it not be best that at least in a state military cemetery maintained by the state an objective state body should exist with the capacity of making decisions, and free of psychological pressures?” Yaron explained that the decisions of the committee regarding the text inscription were based on loyalty to three facts: first, the stepfather raised the deceased and served as her de facto father from childhood till her death; second, by virtue of presenting a request to 27 Ibid., letter from the mother and the stepfather to M. Arens, 9.11.1983. 28 Ibid., a petition for a restraining order and the decision of the High Court of Justice to issue a restraining order, 9.14.1983.

176 

 Uniformity is Tested by an Era of Polarization

the Interior Ministry to change the family name Z expressed her desire that her family’s name would only be the name of her mother’s family after her marriage to her stepfather; third, the biological father “is undoubtedly… the father progenitor of the deceased even if he was not a model or exemplary father, in any case no person can presently sever his biological link to the deceased…” Likewise, the couple agreed to engrave the first name of the biological father but did not agree to engrave his family name, “but this name remains the name of the natural father and this fact is correct and immutable no less than his being the natural father…” especially as the name will not appear on the tombstone as the name of the deceased.²⁹ In general, argued Yaron, the petition is ludicrous, because the mother and stepfather already agreed to note the family name of the biological father, but they concealed the fact of their agreement from the court.³⁰ Regarding the couple’s demand to suffice with jointly engraving the names of the two fathers Yaron argued that this is a “false and misleading text.” “No one can invent… [such] a creature and definitely not force it down the throats of any of the parties.” He conceded that there were precedents for such combinations, but they had been performed on the basis of agreement.³¹ In its decision the High Court of Justice ruled that it did not view the decision of the council that was adopted by the defense minister as an implausible decision, but the reverse was the case. “The council justly believed,” ruled the president of the court, “that it is not sitting in judgment on the issue of relations between fathers and sons and it does not decide the text of the inscription according to evidence which the family relative adduces to corroborate the link or attitude of the deceased to members of his family. A yardstick that would be predicated on such clarifications and would rely on emotional measurements cannot serve as a guiding tool and it will only aggravate discord and pain. The council predicated its decision by relying on objective facts and those are the names of the mother and father and it is not permitted or authorized to express its position on the previous behavior of the mother or the father.” Nonetheless the court commented about the absence of a uniform and binding rule governing the manner of inscription in the event that the parents of a fallen soldier had separated and had remarried. Therefore the court obligated the defense minister and the Public Council “to establish rules for setting the text to be inscribed on the tombstones of deceased soldiers, where one parent or both now have a different family name

29 Ibid, affidavit of P. Yaron, 11.22.1983. 30 Ibid. 31 Ibid.

Political Disputes Expressed via the Tombstone 

 177

other than the name of the deceased soldier, and who had either an adoptive father or mother or stepparents in addition to their natural parents.”³² Two weeks after the verdict was handed down the Permanent Committee of the Council convened and established detailed rules for different categories of adoption. It had in view the following two principles: the one, in no case would there be an attempt to change the names of the natural parents or avoid noting them on the tombstones; second, in the event of an agreed-upon proposal between the biological and adoptive parents, the council would assent to the proposal to the extent possible. One of the rules established that if the fallen soldier was raised most of his life in a new home and had not been legally adopted, first the names of the natural parents would appear on the tombstone, and afterwards the names of the parents who raised him would be entered. In a case where the fallen soldier was legally adopted, the names would be entered in reverse order.³³

Political Disputes Expressed via the Tombstone: “Peace for Galilee Operation” or “The Lebanon War” The bitter political disputes that surfaced in Israeli society both during the course of the Peace for Galilee Operation and afterwards found expression also in appeals by the bereaved families on the inscription text that was decided by the Division for Commemorating the Soldier and upheld in the Public Council and inscribed on the tombstones of those who fell in Lebanon during the operation and at the start of the 80s. The text read “fell… in the Peace for Galilee Operation” and was based on the government decision of June 1982 regarding the name of the action in Lebanon – “Peace for Galilee Operation.”³⁴ Thus for example one of the families contended that the family members view their demand as “an expression of protest… [we] believe that there was no need for continuing the war and we don’t want this matter inscribed on the grave… for us the stone is a signpost of reality and by its inscription on the tombstone we will continue to perpetuate what is false and what I disagree with.” Nevertheless in almost all cases the text “Peace for Galilee Operation” remained on the tombstone either because the families

32 Ibid., the decision on 2.1.1984. 33 DMA, folder 53451, file 4, H. Adar to the chief justice of the Supreme Court, 2.28.1984 Re: rules of inscription in the case of adoptive parents – rules that the council set at its meeting on 2.16.1984. 34 DMA, folder 4078, Spiegel file, protocols of the Tombstone Subcommittee meeting, 1.24.1984, 9.8.1985; ibid., an announcement from the State Attorney’s office, December 1989; ibid., affidavit from director of the Division for Commemorating the Soldier N. Schayek.

178 

 Uniformity is Tested by an Era of Polarization

accepted the explanations of the division and the council or because the council and its committees implacably refused to involve political elements in the inscription, and the appellants reconciled themselves to this for lack of another option.³⁵

Fig. 33: Typical inscription for soldiers who fell in the Peace for Galilee Operation, Kiryat Shaul Military Cemetery. Source: Author’s photographs, March 2002.

The appeal by Efrat Spiegel, whose son Yoav, an outstanding paratroop officer, was killed in June 1983 in a traffic accident in Lebanon, was different and more complicated. On his tombstone were inscribed the words “fell in the line of duty during the Peace for Galilee Operation,” as was customary to engrave in the beginning of the 80s on the tombstones of all those who fell in Lebanon.³⁶ Two years later, in autumn 1985, after the inscription “fell in the line of duty in Lebanon” was instituted during summer 1985 for the graves of those who fell in the line of duty in Lebanon,³⁷ Efrat Spiegel turned to the Division for Commemorating the Soldier with the demand to amend the inscription on her son’s tombstone from “fell in the Peace for Galilee Operation” to “fell in the Lebanon war,” because “I view the words ‘Peace for Galilee’ a brazen lie that profanes the honor of my son, a 35 Draft of the affidavit by P. Yaron – the source of the citation. See also D. Shalit, “Whose Grave Is This,” Ha’aretz Supplement, 7.2.1993, pp. 20-25. 36 See above, footnote 34. 37 DMA (above, footnote 34), petition by A. Spiegel for a restraining order, 9.26.1989.

Political Disputes Expressed via the Tombstone 

 179

lie that wounds my sentiments and compounds my existing pain.”³⁸ This request, and likewise a similar request that was addressed concurrently to the division,³⁹ were rejected both by the division, by the Public Council and by Defense Minister Yitzhak Rabin as well. In explaining the rejection these bodies emphasized that “it was the government that had determined that the official name for the war in Lebanon was ‘Peace for Galilee Operation,’ and such was inscribed on the tombstones of those who fell in Lebanon, and a positive response to the request for amendments would mar the uniformity of the tombstones.”⁴⁰ Nevertheless, Rabin did not rule out the possibility that in the future the government’s decision regarding the official name of the action in Lebanon would change.⁴¹ Efrat Spiegel did not retract her demands and reiterated them during the years 1986-1989. The answer of the Division for Commemorating the Soldier did not alter: “The government of Israel decided to confer upon the Lebanon war the official name of ‘Peace for Galilee Operation’ and this is what was inscribed on the tombstones of all those who fell in this battle. Only the government is authorized to rescind its decision.”⁴² For this reason Spiegel in autumn 1989 petitioned the High Court of Justice demanding that it instruct the defense minister, the division and the council to change the words “in the Peace for Galilee Operation” with the words “in the Lebanon war.”⁴³ The reasons behind the demands, as they appeared in the text of the petition, were scathing:⁴⁴ The words “Peace for Galilee Operation” inscribed on the tombstone of her son deeply and painfully aggrieve the petitioner, and this pain is exacerbated whenever the petitioner visits the grave of her son… it suffices that a long protracted and bloody war should be dubbed “peace” precisely in the Orwellian sense of “1984,” that arouses a sense of deceit and mendacity among anybody who encounters this bizarre name and has not been rendered totally insensitive to language and its usage. This feeling becomes only further embittered and more accentuated when for the purpose of camouflaging this absurdity of a war called “peace,” 38 Ibid., A. Spiegel to Knesset Member M. Virshubski from 1985, without a precise date. 39 An announcement from the State Attorney’s office (above, footnote 34). 40 Above, footnote 34; above, footnote 38; DMA (above, footnote 34), N. Schayek to A. Spiegel, 9.9.1985; ibid., M. Virshubski to A. Spiegel, 10.22.1985; ibid., M. Virshubski to Y. Rabin, 10.22.1985; ibid., Y. Rabin to M. Virshubski, 11.1.1985; above, footnote 39; affidavit of N. Schayek (above, footnote 34). 41 Letter from Y. Rabin (see above, footnote 40). Knesset Member M. Virshubski who assisted the Spiegel family in its request interpreted Rabin’s statement in the following manner: He wasn’t opposed to changing the name of the action in Lebanon on principle, but political difficulties and pressures connected with the makeup of the coalition government could pose an obstacle to this change. On this see DMA (above, footnote 34), M. Virshubski to Y. Rabin, 11.4.1985. 42 DMA (above, footnote 34), N. Schayek to Y. Barad, 10.23.1986. 43 See above, footnote 37. 44 And see DMA (above, footnote 34), R. Bar to N. Arad, 11.23.1989.

180 

 Uniformity is Tested by an Era of Polarization

the word “war” is changed with the word “operation,” when everybody knows that this war has lasted for over three years and claimed thousands of victims, including nearly a thousand Israeli fatalities. The war that Israel initiated on 6.5.82, with the invasion of Lebanon, without any justification and in violation of the cease-fire that existed on the Israeli-Lebanon border in the 11 months preceding it, has no connection whatsoever with the Galilee or with its peace or with any other peace. The very converse is true. This war came about to drive away the peace, to prevent it, and consolidate Israel’s hold of the territories conquered in 1967… the petitioner suffers from the fact that on her son’s tombstone a falsity is inscribed and her suffering is compounded because this lie provokes her from the tombstone in the sense of “it’s not enough that we took your son for a war that is superfluous and unjustified in your eyes, whether you liked it or not, it is not sufficient that your son died in this war, but even now, even after his death and even on his grave we are going to impose our system of values, our opinions and our beliefs.” Even on her son’s grave the petitioner has no refuge from the political context in general and from opinions and positions that totally contravene her opinions and positions in particular… the name “Lebanon war” is the most common and familiar among the public for that war. It does not have any explicit political connotations and is in fact a neutral name; the descriptive names bearing political connections and connotations that contain moral references to the war are “war (or Operation) Peace for Galilee” on the one hand and a “war of deception” on the other hand.⁴⁵

As opposed to previous years, at the close of the 80s when deliberations took place on the position, the senior Defense Ministry echelons deliberated over the proper response. The director of the department of High Court of Justice petitions in the Justice Ministry, Nili Arad, advised the Defense Ministry to reach a compromise with the Spiegel family as she anticipated that the justices would take that position.⁴⁶ Furthermore, over the course of the 80s “Peace for Galilee Operation” was no longer inscribed on the tombstones of those who fell in Lebanon, but “fell… in Lebanon.”⁴⁷ Indeed the senior echelons in the ministry and then Defense Minister Moshe Arens embraced the compromise principle.⁴⁸ They were influenced not only by the position taken by the department of High Court of Justice petitions but by two other reasons: The first reason was the fundamental position of the Rehabilitation Branch “that one should not fight the bereaved families on matters 45 See above, footnote 37. 46 DMA (see above, footnote 34), R. Bar to the deputy legal advisor to the defense establishment, 3.2.1990; ibid., R. Bar to H. Yisraeli, 4.17.1991, 5.1.1991, 5.14.1991. 47 DMA, R. Bar to H. Yisraeli, 2.13.1991; AA, folder 638/96/321, a table of text inscriptions for the tombstones of those falling in Lebanon over the years 1982-1988; DMA, folder 27348, file 992, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 7.14.1991, pp. 26-31, from the statement of the Council Chairman H. Adar; ibid., protocol of the Public Council meeting, 5.13.1991, pp. 27-31, from the statement by H. Adar. 48 DMA (above, footnote 34), R. Bar to H. Yisraeli, 5.8.1991; ibid., H. Yisraeli to R. Bar, 5.9.1991, where the assistant to the minister writes that “I broached the subject twice to the defense minister and for lack of another option he accepts the compromise proposal.”

Political Disputes Expressed via the Tombstone 

 181

that do not contravene government decisions or the fundamental facts of the incident.”⁴⁹ For this reason the branch agreed to the compromise text “fell in the line of duty in Lebanon.” Mention of “the Lebanon war” was rejected categorically “for the act of deciding such an inscription constitutes a political position that opposes the name of the operation decided upon by the government of Israel.”⁵⁰ The second reason for agreeing to a compromise stemmed apparently from the fear shared by senior echelons of the Defense Ministry that they would lose the High Court of Justice case as a few weeks previously the defense minister had lost the “Ginosar High Court of Justice case” that was similarly related to issues of the inscription as we shall discuss below.⁵¹ While the senior echelons in the Defense Ministry supported compromise, the Public Council headed by its chairman, Judge Haim Adar, persisted in its opposition to the demand by the Spiegel family and to any compromise whatsoever. Hence on one of the few occasions in the history of the relations between the Defense Ministry and the person heading it and the Public Council, the two sides were locked in a dispute. The council’s Permanent Committee decided at the beginning of May 1991 to agree to the compromise that the Defense Ministry endorsed, namely to substitute another pillow where only the words “fell in the line of duty” would be inscribed,⁵² but the council plenum rejected any compromise proposal. Adar viewed Spiegel’s demand as a demand with clearly political motivations. In his opinion it represented a deviation from the principle of uniformity and equality, since in the early 80s the tombstones of those who fell in Lebanon bore the inscription “in the Peace for Galilee Operation.” Nonetheless it was actually the reasons of uniformity and equality that were secondary in this case. Adar concentrated on the political matter: “She is fighting her political battles six or eight years after the death of her son because as a result of the war and all the circumstances she is fighting against the governments of Israel in an official fashion… She won’t drop this issue. Who does she claim as a victim? The council. What will be inscribed will prove symbolic and this will constitute the most powerful expression of protest at her disposal should the court allow it. And therefore there is no way that we can agree to it. There is also something quite simple, the words about the Peace for Galilee Operation cover a specific period and that’s why they apply to everybody… and it is impossible to come and say the

49 DMA (above, footnote 34), Z. Cohen to H. Yisraeli, 5.14.1991. 50 Ibid. 51 See p. 195 ff. 52 Letter of R. Bar, 5.8.1991 (above, footnote 48).

182 

 Uniformity is Tested by an Era of Polarization

Lebanon war.”⁵³ Pinhas Yaron, who already in 1985 turned down the request in his role as chairman of the Tombstone Subcommittee, also emphasized: We as representatives of the families of bereavement do not agree with the expression of any political opinion whatsoever on a tombstone. We view this as profaning the memory of our fallen sons. The grave in a military cemetery, although it is a place for the family to commune with the memory of their beloved, is also a national tombstone for the Jewish people that is fighting for its independence and existence in our country and for the dead of the minorities who are fighting for the security and peace of the state. The grave in the military cemetery and the tombstone on it are to a certain extent the general public’s patrimony as well. Of course every family has a right and option to express its political opinion and its outlook on the other stages… but in no way may it employ a site sanctified to the nation – the grave of the fallen and a military cemetery for this purpose. The IDF soldiers, both Jews and members of minorities who fought in the Peace for Galilee Operation, operated within the framework of the Israel Defense Forces and pursuant to a decision of the government of Israel, despite their personal views. Their action and demise was sanctified to Israel’s security. The uniformity that our sons displayed in their war and in their deaths compels us to insist upon uniformity upon their death as well, the uniformity that finds its expression in the uniform grave. The petitioner, with her opinions, that are clearly political, is challenging, after years have elapsed, the decisions of the government of Israel.⁵⁴

Others on the council feared setting a precedent if they agreed to Spiegel’s request: “Other people will awaken and there are people I know, families that would like a change on this matter as well… and there will also be changes on other tombstones for other wars. There will be no limits to this and we must set a limit to this matter… this will be the first case and will provide an opening to many subsequent matters and not only for this case.”⁵⁵ The fear of setting a precedent should the High Court of Justice rule in favor of the petition, the fear of a second consecutive loss after the council had lost a few weeks previously in the petition presented by Yossi Ginosar,⁵⁶ as well as the severe criticism leveled at Nili Arad who headed the department of High Court of Justice petitions in the Justice Ministry and represented the council and the defense minister in the two High Court of Justice petitions – all this engendered bitter feelings on the council and apprehension that its principles would totally collapse. The apprehension was so grave that some council members recommended to Judge Adar to feel out the matter with one of the High Court of Justice 53 DMA, folder 27348, file 992, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 7.14.1991, pp. 29-30, from the statement by Council Chairman H. Adar. 54 Ibid., p. 21, from the statement of P. Yaron. 55 DMA, folder 27348, file 992, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 5.13.1991, p. 31, from a statement by Y. Shemesh. See below on R. Harnik’s approach to the court. 56 See p. 195 ff.

Political Disputes Expressed via the Tombstone 

 183

members – a process that was fundamentally invalid and one that Adar rejected on the spot: “There will be no such thing with us. We will honor these matters and we will preserve these matters whatever the Supreme Court decides we will accept… we’ll accept it with good grace, because we preserve the framework and the totality according to what the law allows.”⁵⁷ On the eve of the High Court of Justice decision and when it appeared that the prospects that the position of the Defense Minister and the council would be accepted were not high – especially in light of High Court of Justice ruling in April 1991 in the Ginosar petition where the justices ruled that one could not totally ignore the sentiments of the relatives⁵⁸ – the department of High Court of Justice petitions in the Justice Ministry, the Defense Ministry and especially the legal advisors of the defense establishment worked to finalize a compromise with Mrs. Spiegel.⁵⁹ According to Adar, the main reason was the fear of a second successive failure for the minister at the High Court of Justice. “I won’t allow the minister to fall in a second High Court of Justice case”⁶⁰ – this according to Adar was what the legal advisor to the defense establishment told him. Others on the council were very disappointed that this was the reason behind the government’s interest in a compromise.⁶¹ In the end result, Adar also agreed to compromise on the text “fell… in Lebanon,” but he refused vociferously to mention the word “war” and emphasized: “It would be better for us [the council] to lose the High Court of Justice case again and again than to sever the base and the ethical branch on which we are sitting. This is an ethical matter… if they don’t accept this I am resigning…”⁶² One way or another, a day before the decision of the High Court of Justice the Defense Ministry and the department of High Court of Justice petitions reached a compromise with the Spiegel family to change the text from “fell in the line of duty in the Peace for Galilee Operation” to “fell in the line of duty in Lebanon.”⁶³ 57 See the protocol of the Public Council meeting (above, footnote 55), p. 30, from the statement of Council Chairman H. Adar. 58 See p. 196 and see as well DMA, folder 53451, file 4, memorandum by N. Arad Re: “Inscription on the tombstones of IDF dead,” 12.1.1992. 59 DMA (above, footnote 34), R. Bar to H. Yisraeli, 5.14.1991. 60 Protocol of the Public Council meeting (above, footnote 53), p. 29. 61 DMA, folder 1624, file 1315, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 12.2.1992, pp. 52-53, from the statement of B. Shemer. 62 See above, footnote 60. 63 DMA (above, footnote 34), N. Arad to the legal advisor of the defense establishment, 5.15.1991, appended is the request by the legal representative of the Spiegel family to remove the petition, 5.16.1991; ibid., N. Arad to Y. Barad, 5.15.1991. As mentioned the Spiegel family opposed the previous state compromise proposal to write only “fell in the line of duty.” On this see Ha’aretz Supplement (above, footnote 35).

184 

 Uniformity is Tested by an Era of Polarization

Let us add that Adar, who had mistakenly heard from the defense minister’s assistant that the compromise included the words “in the Lebanon war,” immediately resigned and did not retract his resignation even after his mistake had emerged.⁶⁴ Raya Harnik, whose son Guni had fallen in the conquest of the Beaufort, also voiced her opposition to the text “Peace for Galilee Operation” on her son’s tombstone. Only after she turned for relief to the High Court of Justice as a result of the Spiegel compromise and the loss of the council in the Ginosar High Court of Justice case, the Defense Ministry at the recommendation of the department of High Court of Justice petitions in the Justice Ministry reached a compromise with her, to the effect that the words “Peace for Galilee Operation” were erased from the tombstone and the words “fell in the battle in Lebanon” remained. The suit of the Zifer family that lost a son in Lebanon concluded in a similar compromise.⁶⁵ Subsequently, in 2002, Harnik changed the pillow on the tombstone and engraved on it “fell in the battle for the Beaufort in the Lebanon war.” In her words, “I gave up the words ‘commander of the Golani reconnaissance unit’ due to consideration for other families that would have possibly been aggrieved.”⁶⁶

Opposition to Adding the Letters ‫( הי"ד‬May the Lord Avenge His Blood) A demand by one of the parents to inscribe the letters ‫ הי"ד‬on his son’s tombstone was vigorously rejected by the council. The council’s determined opposition to adding these letters stemmed from the impairment to uniformity that obligated writing the letters ‫ תנצב"ה‬exclusively and for fear that the precedent of inscribing the letters ‫ הי"ד‬would lead to other demands on the issues of inscription. And there were other explanations: “The text ‫ הי"ד‬is not acceptable to part of the public because of its content, and therefore a text to which everybody could attach the significance that appealed to him was adopted. Furthermore, however, there is a much more serious explanation: We cannot say for every fallen soldier to our sorrow ‘May the Lord avenge his blood.’ There are many who fell not as a result of action by the enemy but as a result of mistakes, and training or other accidents and the cause of the soldier’s death is actually one of us. How then will the expression ‘May the Lord avenge his blood’ be interpreted? Can the family of 64 The protocol in DMA (above, footnote 353), pp. 29-31. 65 Ha’aretz Supplement (above, footnote 35); A. Lurie, “A Small Grand Piano on the Grave and a Few Additional Words of Farewell,” Ha’aretz, 9.14.1994; DMA, folder 41126, file 1010, R. Harnik to M. Cohen, 5.16.1991. 66 From R. Harnik’s letter to the author, 12.5.2003.

Flexibility in the Categories of Death 

 185

somebody who accidentally caused injury accept the text with equanimity?”⁶⁷ In the end result, as result of the decision of the High Court of Justice in the Ginosar case the family presented a petition to the High Court of Justice. The Defense Ministry and the department of High Court of Justice petitions in the Justice Ministry preferred to compromise, and they allowed the family to engrave the letters as desired as an addition.⁶⁸

Flexibility in the Categories of Death and Opposition to Expressions Reflecting on the Morality and Circumstances of Death In November 1987 seven soldiers were killed by a terrorist attack on one of the border bases in the North, an event that was called “The Night of the Gliders.” The parents of six of the soldiers who organized rejected the text that was determined by the Division for Commemorating the Soldier – “fell in the line of duty” – and turned to the council with a request to authorize the text “fell in the battle for defending the Northern communities.” The council agreed to the first part of the demands and changed the text to “fell in battle.” This agreement dovetailed with a longstanding policy of the council, which we have already seen before, to be lenient in borderline cases between two categories of dying, especially as it emerged in the final result that a battle did take place. In contradistinction the council did not agree to inscribe “in the defense of the Northern communities” although it could not explain how half a year previously this text had been inscribed on the tombstone of a soldier who fell in the region of Manara in an encounter with terrorists. It is possible that the decision by the Division for Commemorating the Soldier to inscribe the text “in the defense of the Northern communities” was not discussed in the council, but one of the parents justifiably argued with great bitterness this: “Why then should this unknown soldier deserve entering the place where he had fallen while our children do not deserve it?”⁶⁹ In any event, the council now contended that attributing ethical value to the death 67 P. Yaron, “Problems-Problems-Problems,” in Discourse of the Bereaved (1988-1989), p. 36 – source of the citation. See also DMA, folder 21495, file 445, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 10.1.1986. 68 See Ha’aretz supplement (above, footnote 35); DMA, folder 1624, file 1315, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 12.2.1992, p. 35, from the statements by M. Shmuelevitz and N. Arad. 69 DMA, folder 6636, file 603, L. Haramati to S. and A. G., 10.28.1988; ibid., S. and A. G. to the chairman of the Public Council, 12.7.1988 – source of the citation. See also DFCSA, protocol of the Permanent Committee of the Public Council meeting, 6.21.1995, p. 11, from the statement by N. Schayek.

186 

 Uniformity is Tested by an Era of Polarization

or its circumstances (defense of the North) harmed uniformity, and therefore it could not agree. We have observed that the council behaved in this manner back in 1974 as well in the Ben Zeev case.⁷⁰ To the category of “fell in battle” one could add also the place of death, and as a result the set text became “fell in battle in the North” – a text to which the parents finally gave their consent. As in the past, the Public Council displayed flexibility only on a matter that did not essentially impact on uniformity.⁷¹

Opposition to Adding the Title “Doctor” for Military Physicians As may be recalled, already during the 50s the council adopted a fundamental decision not to add to the inscription the civilian title and profession,⁷² and due to this decision requests in previous years to add the civilian title had been turned down. For example, in 1969 a request by the widow of Major Shlomo Zvi Ran to add the title “Dr.” was rejected on the grounds of preserving uniformity and equality.⁷³ Nevertheless the council did not insist upon the principle on all occasions, and thus for example in 1982 it sanctioned adding the title “doctor” on the tombstone of an army physician who fell in the line of duty. Subsequently the heads of the council did admit this deviation, but explained this was an error that stemmed from unfamiliarity with decisions that had been adopted previously.⁷⁴ In the second half of the 80s the issue again arose when the Division for Commemorating the Soldier turned down the request of the relatives of the military physician Doron Sdeh-Lavan, who had died of an illness during his service, to add the title “Dr.” to the inscription on his tombstone. In this case, however, the Army medical community, through the chief medical officer, and also the Israeli Medical Association, via its chairman, Ram Yishai, took umbrage at this deci-

70 See above, p. 157 ff. 71 Ha’aretz supplement (above, footnote 35); above, footnote 69; DMA, folder 6636, file 603, letter from the parents of the fallen soldiers from the “The Night of the Gliders” to R. Vardi, 11.8.1988; ibid., G. Fordes to H. Yisraeli, 12.11.1988; YLA, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 11.29.1988, pp. 28-29, from the statement by the Chairman H. Adar; ibid., file 638/96/321, memorandum of the Army Manpower Division – Casualties, 10.30.1988, 11.13.1988; ibid., texts of inscriptions on tombstones; letter from the head of the Army Manpower Division– Casualties to the head of the Casualty Branch, 12.22.1988. 72 See above, p. 138. 73 See above, p. 147. See also a similar case that was rejected in March 1968, in YLA, protocol of the Permanent Committee of the Public Council meeting, 12.6.1987, p. 9, statement by Chairman H. Adar. 74 The protocol in YLA (above, footnote 73), p. 6, from a statement by H. Adar.

Opposition to Adding the Title “Doctor” for Military Physicians 

 187

sion. Both expressed the disgruntlement of the entire medical community and demanded adding the title “doctor” on every tombstone of a military doctor who died in the course of his military service.⁷⁵ Their main argument was that in the case of a military physician, as opposed to those who bore the same title in other professions, the title “doctor” is not merely a professional title but part of the essence and identity of the bearer – something that was equivalent to his rank or name. Or in the words of Ram Yishai: “A doctor of medicine is something totally different, I don’t view it at all as a title… a doctor both in civilian life and in the Army… a doctor is a doctor for the soldier, the soldier doesn’t call him a lieutenant, doesn’t call him captain… for him the jobs in the military hierarchy are not important at all. I was a divisional physician for 15 years and the soldiers knew me as Dr…. for them I was the doctor and that’s the way it was in every framework. They connected the fact that I was a doctor, a divisional doctor… the word the physician or doctor as we employ it was not a degree… this was an expression of what this person was in the IDF… for if he was a professor of medicine I would not be requesting them to write professor of medicine.”⁷⁶ Some members of the council were persuaded by the explanations of Ram Yishai and believed that the title “doctor” constituted part of a person’s name: “A tombstone presents the man as he was. I don’t believe that this mars uniformity if it is written the man was a doctor and such was his military rank.” In addition, “This creates another question, what are we to do with the 12 tombstones where this title already exists?”⁷⁷ However, most members of the council were not persuaded. They viewed even the addition of the title “doctor” to the tombstone of a military physician as the addition of a professional title and therefore a deviation from the principle of uniformity and equality and an insult to the families of slain soldiers who during their lifetime had served in less prestigious professions. They found support for their position in the Ben Zeev High Court of Justice case from 1974 which upheld the principle of not allowing the addition of the military title (armored corps) and as a result it was decided, as mentioned, to stop noting the profession “pilot.”⁷⁸ 75 Ibid., p. 4, from a statement by H. Adar; DMA, folder 6636, file 603, H. Adar to Y. Rabin, 2.21.1988; ibid., Y. Rabin to R. Yishai, 2.29.1988; DMA, folder 6634, file 587, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 9.24.1989, p. 21, from the statement of Chairman H. Adar. 76 The protocol in YLA (above, footnote 73), pp. 8-9, from the statement by Chairman of the Israel Medical Association R. Yishai. 77 Ibid., p. 14, from a statement by M. Shmuelevitz. 78 Letter from H. Adar to Y. Rabin and letter from Y. Rabin to R. Yishai (above, footnote 75); protocol in YLA (see above, footnote 73); DMA, folder 6634, file 587, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 9.24.1989, p. 21, from a statement by H. Adar. See also the expression by the bereaved parents in Discourse of the Bereaved, Memorial Day 1988, p. 65, opposing agreement to the de-

188 

 Uniformity is Tested by an Era of Polarization

In the course of the discussion the Army also made its position clear, and this was a vigorous and decisive position (aside from the position of the chief medical officer) against noting the title – a continuation of the consistent stands by the Army in favor of uniformity and equality. And this is what the representative of the Army in the course of the discussion emphasized: We attach great importance to the issue of uniformity. From our standpoint persistence of uniformity is a value in its own right; our sensitivity states that they all were our sons and when we speak about uniform military cemeteries, we are addressing everybody and we must address everybody in an equal manner, in the same manner itself, and therefore we cannot award importance to this profession or another. From my standpoint a pilot or the holder of a medal of valor of this sort or the other or a doctor who is an engineer or a doctor who is a physician, are one and the same… after their death everybody is equal in our eyes and I believe that every family attaches importance to this detail or another among its sons, for everyone something particular is important, and therefore for a particular family it’s important that the man was a doctor, to another family it’s important that he was a pilot, to the third it’s important that he was a rabbi and to the fourth it’s particularly important that he was the holder of a medal of valor. Where shall we put the emphasis? When will we drop this from discussion? And how should we regard those gray or classified professions that we are not permitted to emphasize? When should we give greater importance to this one and less importance to the next?... from this standpoint we see the matter clearly. There will be no entry of a military or civilian profession whatsoever that was the job of that fallen soldier, and the details that will remain on the grave will be the personal details, name, serial number, and rank only.⁷⁹

The Demand to Add the Secular Date of Death and its Rejection As mentioned above, the council decided at the beginning of the 50s to inscribe on the tombstones of the Jewish fallen only the Hebrew date of death as well as note the age of the fallen in numerals (on the tombstones of non-Jewish tombstones the secular date was inscribed – in regular or Arabic numerals, in accordance with the religion of the fallen).⁸⁰ Over the years a few families raised demands for adding the secular date of birth,⁸¹ but these demands were turned down by mand to allow the addition of the title “doctor” for a physician (given the deliberations on the case that was on the agenda). The explanation was that this would induce other academic professional organizations to come with similar demands and would lead to requests by the parents for various inscriptions in the cemeteries leading to damaging uniformity and equality. 79 The protocol in YLA (above, footnote 73), p. 12, from the statement by Z. Gilat. 80 SIA, High Court of Justice file 1438/91, protocol of the Permanent Committee of the Public Council meeting, 3.8.1990, p. 49, from the statement by P. Yaron. 81 Ibid., p. 55, from the statement by P. Yaron.

The Demand to Add the Secular Date of Death and its Rejection 

 189

the Division for Commemorating the Soldier and the Public Council, and “up to now [March 1990] no secular date was inscribed on the tombstones but only the Hebrew date.”⁸² For this reason, when a demand for adding the secular date arose for discussion in the beginning of 1990 before the Permanent Committee of the Council (after there was a tied vote in the Tombstone Subcommittee in terms of voices for and against adding the secular date), it seemed to the council chairman that the deliberation on the demand would be brief and it would be rejected on the spot. But that was not the case. In practice the issue arose a number of times during 1990 on the Permanent Committee’s table, and at the demand of the defense minister, the Council as well discussed the issue twice.⁸³ The background to the discussion was a demand by Esther Shibak – the mother of the late Itay Shibak who fell in September 1989 in an encounter with terrorists on Mount Dov and was buried at Ramot Hashavim – to engrave in addition to the Hebrew date the secular date of the time of death as well. In explaining her demand she emphasized that the Hebrew date was not used and had no significance for the general public, because that public found it difficult to translate the Hebrew date into the secular date and therefore would not know when her son had fallen. But she as a mother “wants that those who should pass by him should also know when he gave his life. I want them to know when, I want that in 40 years, in 50 years, I don’t know when, I will always want them to know when Itay fell. He did this for a sublime purpose… I come to Itay, to my son, and they ask me: Esther, how much time has already passed? But it is inscribed 10 Elul 5749, how much time has passed? This is the straw that broke the camel’s back, what does that mean how much time has passed? If it were written there 9.9.89 they would immediately know how much time has passed… So I’m surely insisting on this.” She further added that in any case the uniformity of the tombstones had already been harmed, since many families add articles, symbols, etc., to the tombstone. She viewed her demand as a fundamental demand that represented the other fallen: “There are things that I’m prepared to compromise on, there are things I will absolutely not give up and the date is something very, very fundamental. I understand that I’m going perhaps… to perform a mini revolution… but I think this is a justified turnabout. Things changed there, many things changed since that time [of establishing the principle of inscribing only the Hebrew date], many laws changed since…”⁸⁴ “There’s one thing that remains to me and that’s 82 Ibid., p. 40, from the statement by the Chairman H. Adar. 83 SIA, High Court of Justice file 1438/91, protocols of the Permanent Committee of the Public Council meetings, 3.8.1990, 7.24.1990, 10.17.1990; ibid., protocols of the Public Council meetings, 7.24.1990, 11.5.1990. 84 Protocol of the Permanent Committee of the Public Council meeting, 3.8.1990 (above, foot-

190 

 Uniformity is Tested by an Era of Polarization

to perpetuate my son and in general the memory and honor of the IDF slain with the saying ‘to remember and not forget.’ One of the means for doing so is the date, and therefore I’ve turned to the branch for Commemorating the Soldier and I’ve asked that they should inscribe the secular date in addition to the Hebrew one.”⁸⁵ As may be recalled, already in the early 50s the parents (and especially the mothers) demanded to include the secular dates on the tombstones. The reason for this was the desire that the public should be aware of the young age of the fallen at the time they gave their lives for the establishment of the state. The solution that has been found was noting the age of a fallen when he died, without adding the secular date of death.⁸⁶ The demand by Ms. Shibak was a dual one: First, she demanded noting the secular date in order that someone passing alongside her son’s tombstone would be able to situate the date her son fell in the period where the event took place. Secondly, it was important that they should know what was the family “fault line” – the date of death. In this way one can understand what she said before the Public Council when she noted, as stated, that she is asked by her friends how much time has passed since Itay fell: “But what does that mean how much time has passed? If it were written there 9.9.89 they would immediately know how much time has passed…”⁸⁷ In 1990 as stated both the Permanent Committee and the council plenum held lively discussions on the demand by Ms. Shibak. The length of the discussions and their being aired in all levels of the council, beginning with the Tombstone Subcommittee, via the Permanent Committee and finally with the council plenum, stemmed not only from the demands of the minister, but also because the topic was a fundamental issue, and any deviation from the existing norm could serve as a precedent both for the past and the future with all the implicit repercussions. In the end result it was decided to turn down the request, but the decision was not adopted unanimously. Let us note that at the same year an almost identical civil suit was on the docket of the Jerusalem District Court regarding the refusal of one of the Jerusalem burial societies to engrave on the tombstone of the deceased the secular date. But the decision on the matter (referred to as the “Kestenbaum verdict”), which ordered the burial society to engrave the secular date, was rendered on December 1990 – a few weeks⁸⁸ after the Public Council

note 80), pp. 40-43, from the statement of Ms. E. Shibak. 85 Protocol of the Public Council meeting, 11.5.1990 (above, footnote 83), p. 22, from the letter by Ms. E. Shibak. See also Ha’aretz supplement (above, footnote 35). 86 See above, p. 125. 87 Protocol of the Permanent Committee of the Public Council meeting, 3.8.1990 (above, footnote 80), p. 41. 88 SIA (above, footnote 80), the decision on the Kestenbaum suit.

The Demand to Add the Secular Date of Death and its Rejection 

 191

for Commemorating the Soldier had already finished its deliberations regarding the demand by Ms. Shibak. Had the decision been adopted in the District Court earlier, it may have influenced the deliberations of the Public Council. The opponents raised six fundamental arguments against noting the secular date in addition to the Hebrew date. First, we are dealing with a severe blow to uniformity, since from the time the military cemeteries were established the secular date was not inscribed. Furthermore, one could not obligate everybody to inscribe the secular date – even if it would be possible to change the thousands of pillows on the tombstones in order to create uniformity if the request were to be agreed to. In this manner some of the tombstones would incorporate the secular date and some would not.⁸⁹ And a number of council members added: We’ve already… encountered a number of requests. It is quite simple, had we accepted them, we would have destroyed the uniformity of the military cemeteries… had we gone in this direction [we would proceed] to destroy the uniformity of the graves… I believe that there is a formula that exists and we cannot… [allow that] whoever wants to [would add the secular date] and whoever doesn’t want to [would not add it]… One should not change the text… we have removed all this [from the agenda] in order to preserve the uniformity of the graves. And for this I say, we shouldn’t even discuss these matters. One should drop them and preserve the military cemeteries according to the existing custom... It isn’t conceivable that in a certain cemetery or in the cemeteries in general two or three should be with this date or in addition to it and the other should not be. There must be uniformity… from the standpoint of the law the uniformity is presently forced upon us… uniformity must exist... I for example would oppose a Christian date on the grave. In no event would I agree to it. Therefore in order to preserve uniformity one must preserve a date that would be acceptable to everyone.⁹⁰

Secondly one should not strike at a tradition that was customary among the Jewish people for generations to inscribe on the tombstones purely the Hebrew date: a tradition that was a reason for the council decision from the early 50s.⁹¹ Likewise the memorial date for the slain soldier was determined by the Hebrew date. And “it isn’t conceivable that among the Jewish people there should be a secular date and a Hebrew date for a simple reason: There will be part of the family that will come to the Memorial Day on the Hebrew date. And there’ll be

89 Protocol of the Permanent Committee of the Public Council meeting, 3.8.1990 (above, footnote 80), pp. 46-47; protocol of the Permanent Committee of the Public Council meeting, 7.24.1990 (above, footnote 83), pp. 12, 16-17. 90 Protocol of the Public Council meeting, 11.5.1999 (above, footnote 83), pp. 26-28, from the statements by D. Giladi, P. Tal and N. Lifschitz. 91 Protocol of the Permanent Committee of the Public Council meeting, 3.8.1990 (see above, footnote 80), pp. 48-49, from the statement of P. Yaron.

192 

 Uniformity is Tested by an Era of Polarization

part of the family that will come on the secular date. And one should stop this once and for all. Every time people materialize with all sorts of inventions. So either we are the Jewish people, and I say this in simple words, despite the fact that I’m totally secular. One cannot… take and mix the secular date which is never identical to our holidays and in general not to the Jewish people. Why do we have to add this in a cemetery? Whoever wants it has the option, he wants it in particular, there is a civilian cemetery, let him erect a tombstone there, if he thinks it is so important to keep a distance from Jewish tradition.”⁹² Thirdly, the Hebrew date is a national, Jewish and cultural value that one should not let go of; all the holidays are fixed according to the Hebrew date, Independence Day and Memorial Day as well: “No one celebrates the date of May 15… the secular Memorial Day is the fourth day of Iyyar and that is fixed. All these dates are Hebrew dates.”⁹³ Thus for example the council members expressed themselves on this topic: Due to our many transgressions, our generation did not know how to implant national consciousness… so, to give it a prize… in order that it should be easier to know the secular date and be ashamed of our nationality and our dates instead of attempting to achieve ever greater penetration of this matter… we are slowly but surely divesting ourselves of all sorts of Jewish and Israeli elements that were accepted by us for many years. One of these things is that on the tombstone, and they never disputed this, there should be the Hebrew date and solely the Hebrew date… on a private matter I would definitely tend to agree to a private request like any other private request that sometimes… we authorized… but as I said I have a difficulty with this because this definitely turns attention to a very substantial question from our standpoint… what vexes me in a civilian cemetery is not the secular date, but the secular name because the secular name betokens a culture, speaks about the attitude, but they insist that the name be written in a foreign language. We are facing a major dilemma on this issue with the massive immigration from Russia, from the Soviet Union, these are generally people who do not have any elements of some of the fundamentals of Jewish culture. They know they are Jews because a non-Jew has told them that they are Jews, not much more beyond this, this is the majority, not everybody, and this problem is a severe problem…⁹⁴ There is a tendency in part of the public to blur any matter that has… a national value and a value for the Jewish people. And I think that we have to combat this tendency.⁹⁵ 92 Protocol of the Public Council meeting, 11.5.1990 (above, footnote 83), p. 25, from a statement by D. Giladi. 93 Ibid., p. 28, from a statement by P. Yaron. 94 Protocol of the Permanent Committee of the Public Council meeting, 3.8.1990 (above, footnote 80), pp. 48-54, from the statements by P. Yaron, Chairman H. Adar and R. Vardi. 95 Protocol of the Public Council meeting, 11.5.1990 (above, footnote 83), p. 29, from a statement by P. Yaron. See also ibid., protocol of the Permanent Committee of the Public Council meeting, 7.24.1990, pp. 13, 15-16; ibid., protocol of the Public Council meeting, 7.24.1990, pp. 22-23. One of

The Demand to Add the Secular Date of Death and its Rejection 

 193

Fourthly, agreeing to requests to add the secular date will create an opening for more extreme demands such as writing the details of the slain on the tombstones in Latin letters, and as one of the members expressed: “I’m truly totally secular but it really bothers me when I see on the tombstones [in a civilian cemetery] the name inscribed in foreign as well as Hebrew letters. For some reason this wounds me, and I think that this change creates an opening because afterward that will come the demand: ‘My children were educated at Oxford, they don’t read Hebrew so well, I want my children to know the name of the nephew who fell.’”⁹⁶ Fifth, there are definitely quite a few people in the family of bereavement who will fundamentally oppose the addition of the secular date, and therefore agreement in principle to the demand of Ms. Shibak to inscribe from now on the secular date in order to preserve uniformity will create a severe dispute and set the vision in the family of bereavement leading even to a demand to establish separate military cemeteries. And this is especially the case as the number of demands since the War of Independence to inscribe the secular date is meager, and this shows that the general public does not desire this.⁹⁷ What is needed now is a concession from Ms. Shibak in order to preserve the unity of the family of bereavement.⁹⁸ Six, in case the request is agreed to, one cannot ignore the technical difficulty, the duration of time and the huge budgetary costs that will be involved in applying the change in the inscription to the existing tombstones, especially as it will not be possible to add the secular date to the existing pillows and there will be a need to replace them.⁹⁹ Let us note that this time, as opposed to the 50s, the Jewish religious argument was not advanced, because from clarifications that the chairman of the Public Council had made with the chief rabbinic chaplain it emerged that “there is no prohibition to engraving a secular date on the tombstone” “and from the

the members, A. Yahel, added that if a situation had been created that mandated raising the pillows and changing them with new ones, he would have demanded in the name of “Hebraism” to engrave the age of the fallen in letters. On this see ibid., protocol of the Permanent Committee of the Public Council meeting, 7.24.1990, p. 19. And compare this with the court’s decision in the Kestenbaum case, regarding the ethical and national interest in the Hebrew inscription. 96 Protocol of the Public Council meeting, 7.24.1990 (above, footnote 83), pp. 25-26, from the statement by M. Shmuelevitz. 97 Ibid., pp. 23-24. 98 Protocol of the Permanent Committee of the Public Council meeting, 3.8.1990 (above, footnote 80), pp. 55, from the statement by P. Yaron. 99 Protocol of the Permanent Committee of the Public Council meeting, 7.24.1990 (above, footnote 83), pp. 16-17; ibid., protocol of the Public Council meeting, 11.5.1990, p. 24, from the statement by Chairman H. Adar.

194 

 Uniformity is Tested by an Era of Polarization

standpoint of Jewish religious law he [the chief military rabbinic chaplain] does not see any impediment.”¹⁰⁰ In contrast to the opponents of adding the secular dates the few supporters of Ms. Shibak’s petition argued that one could not ignore a reality where most of the public almost always used the secular date, and have no proficiency in the Hebrew date. All visitors wanted to know the date of death, which is also a detail for remembering the fallen, and therefore it was impossible to properly honor him if only the Hebrew date was noted on the tombstone. This is how some members put it: I believe that we can and we should be allowed to be realistic, to move with progress, that would not damage tradition [in other words adding the secular dates to the Hebrew ones]. The decisive majority of the public uses a secular date, and therefore I believe that we must… treat the request positively. The matter is tied to and involves many difficulties perhaps, and this constitutes a precedent, but it appears to me that we can’t go against the tide. Not only this, whenever I visit civilian cemeteries and meet somebody visiting the grave of his relatives or acquaintances who passed away, when I read the Hebrew date I don’t know exactly when this happened, and therefore I say that is much easier in order to honor his memory, in order to remember when it happened, if the secular date would also accompany the Hebrew date…¹⁰¹ I believe that this will not shake us up. It will not shake the culture that is taking shape here. Years go by and we are not rid of this, neither in the daily press, not in invitations and not in IDF dates.¹⁰² Almost all the visitors want to know when the day of death was… they want to reconstruct some historical occurrence. And the moment there is just the Hebrew date it’s hard to make a reckoning. Everything gets blurred.¹⁰³

The supporters of the demand further argued that there would not be substantial impairment to uniformity if on some of the tombstones they would add the secular 100 Protocol of the Permanent Committee of the Public Council meeting, 7.24.1990 (above, footnote 83), p. 11 – the source of the first citation; ibid., p. 15. See ibid., protocol of the Public Council meeting, 11.5.1990, p. 23 – the source of the second citation from H. Adar’s words. See also ibid., p. 28. On the matter of Jewish religious law see in detail the decision regarding the Kestenbaum lawsuits in SIA (above, footnote 80). 101 Protocol of the Permanent Committee of the Public Council meeting, 3.8.1990 (above, footnote 80), pp. 51-52, from the statement of Y. Avinoam – the source of the citation. See also ibid., p. 47; protocol of the Public Council meeting, 7.24.1990 (above, footnote 83), pp. 24-25. 102 DMA, folder 27348, file 992, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 5.13.1991, p. 9, from the statement by H. Rivlin. 103 Protocol of the Permanent Committee of the Public Council meeting, 7.24.1990 (above, footnote 83), p. 15, from the statement by Y. Avinoam.

The Beginning of a Turnabout 

 195

dates and on some other tombstones only the Hebrew date would remain;¹⁰⁴ likewise it was argued that if a survey was conducted on the subject, most families would support adding the secular dates.¹⁰⁵ Given the heartrending feelings displayed by Ms. Shibak in her request, there were those on the council who proposed agreeing to her request on an exceptional basis without viewing it as a precedent. But this proposal was quickly dropped from the agenda because of the fundamental matter of the case, because “let us assume that we approved it this time, next time someone appears before us will we tell them no?! Would the case stand at the High Court of Justice? How are we going to explain a negative response… you do this once, you can’t appear before the family and say: ‘In this particular case I did such and such and in this particular case I won’t do it.’ You have to provide explanations. You must explain yourself. This stands the scrutiny of criticism and scrutiny of criticism is rational, the scrutiny of criticism is logical.”¹⁰⁶ And thus the demand to incorporate the secular date on the tombstone was rejected, although not for long. As we shall see below, half a year later, as a result of a similar demand, an uncompromising one, of Yossi Ginosar, the High Court of Justice issued a ruling to allow the inscription of the secular date on the tombstones. For the first time since the inscription text was set in the 50s, the High Court of Justice began in the early 90s to serve as a decisive force in altering the text of the inscription.

The Beginning of a Turnabout: The Option of Adding the Secular Dates at the Directive of the High Court of Justice Yossi Ginosar, whose son Shahar fell in the Gaza Strip at the start of March 1991, asked the Division for Commemorating the Soldier to inscribe on the tombstone of his son the secular date of death beside the Hebrew date of death. The basis of the request was the argument that Shahar (like other members of his family) conducted his life on the basis of the secular calendar and in any case this calendar had become part of his being. Therefore one should honor the memory of Shahar by noting the secular date of his death, especially as the lifestyle of the family members was predicated on the secular calendar and it was their right to honor 104 Ibid., p. 14, from statement by M. Netzer. 105 Ibid., p. 15, from the statement by Y. Avinoam. 106 Ibid., p. 20, from the statements by R. Vardi and H. Adar. See also DMA, folder 6636, file 603, summaries of the Public Council meetings, 7.24.1990, 11.5.1990; ibid., DMA, folder 41126, file 1010, H. Adar to M. Arens, 8.19.1990.

196 

 Uniformity is Tested by an Era of Polarization

the memory of their beloved according to their lifestyle and tradition.¹⁰⁷ Furthermore, “setting the secular date on the tombstone is fully consonant with what is accepted in our society and does not deviate from the conceptual world according to which we all live,”¹⁰⁸ and especially, according to Ginosar’s arguments, that there are precedents for noting the secular date: “The last precedent familiar to us is that of the late tracker Amos Yarkoni. A similar inscription was entered on the tombstones of members of cooperative farms and kibbutzim.”¹⁰⁹ And in summation Ginosar argued that preventing notation of the secular date “strikes at the freedom of conscience and individual liberties.”¹¹⁰ The Division for Commemorating the Soldier, the Public Council and consequently the defense minister as well – all these rejected the request based on the discussions, exclamations and decisions of the Public Council on the matter of Shibak a year previously.¹¹¹ It should be noted that as opposed to the claim raised by Ginosar regarding precedents in this matter, the legal advisor to the defense establishment argued that “to the best of my knowledge to this very day since the establishment of the state we only enter on the tombstone the Hebrew date of passing.”¹¹² Ginosar was determined and convinced of the justice of his demand. On April 10, 1991, a day after he received a negative response from the Defense Ministry, he presented a petition to the High Court of Justice that was discussed the next day before Justices Shlomo Levin, Gavriel Bach and Theodore Or. The verdict was also delivered that very day. The speed in presenting the petition and the discussion were tied to the fact that the date marking 30 days after Shahar’s death – the planned date for setting the pillow – took place two days after the presentation of the petition, and the Memorial Day for IDF fallen fell a week afterwards. It is nevertheless clear that the state did not have sufficient time to properly prepare for the petition. No affidavit was submitted on behalf of the council, and no written

107 SIA (above, footnote 80), the Ginosar petition via his attorney A. Zichroni, 4.10.1991. 108 Ibid., A. Zichroni to M. Arens, 4.8.1991 – source of the citation. See also ibid., Y. Ginosar to N. Schayek, 4.8.1991. 109 Ibid., A. Zichroni to M. Arens, 4.4.1991. Apparently we were dealing with the graves of members of agricultural collectives in the cemeteries of the collectives and not in the military cemeteries or military sections. Likewise, as we shall see below, the defense establishment negated the argument regarding precedents. 110 See above, footnote 107, paragraph 21. 111 See above, p. 191. See also SIA, High Court of Justice file 1438/91, D. Shefi to A. Zichroni, 4.9.1991. See also ibid., protocols of the deliberations of the Public Council and the Permanent Committee of the Public Council, 3.8.1990, 7.24.1990, 10.17.1990, 11.5.1990. 112 See letter from D. Shefi to A. Zichroni (above, footnote 111).

The Beginning of a Turnabout 

 197

reply was submitted by the state to the petition but only an oral response during the deliberations in the court.¹¹³ In their verdict the justices of the High Court of Justice rejected the position of the state that from the moment that Ginosar chose to bury his son in a military cemetery, “he undertook to subordinate himself to the directives involved in the matter… for it was his right to insist on the fact that his son should be buried among soldiers and at the same time to attack the plausibility of the directive spirit.”¹¹⁴ There is no doubt that in their decision the justices contradicted the statements of their colleagues in their ruling from 1975 in the Ben Zeev High Court of Justice case.¹¹⁵ In any case, the justices declared that although they view the principle of uniformity as a relevant and plausible principle, nevertheless they wanted to distinguish between a substantial impairment to the principle of uniformity (such as “adding inscriptions of one form or another to the standard inscription on the tombstones that carry any emotional or substantial ethical charge”) – in such cases the High Court of Justice hinted that it would have embraced the position of the defense establishment – and cases where there was no substantial impairment to the principle of uniformity; such case, where against its insubstantial impairment to the principle of uniformity there is a substantial impairment to the feelings and desires of the deceased soldier’s relatives, the High Court of Justice will decide in favor of the soldier’s relatives. Since the justices did not view the addition of a secular date as a substantial impairment to the principle of uniformity, for the secular date has become part of our existence and it is merely “a dimension of a vital detail pertaining to the falling of the deceased in the framework of his military service”; and whereas “the petitioner pointed out to us additional cases of non-uniform inscription on the tombstones”; and whereas it has already been ruled in the past regarding civilian cemeteries that it is not possible to prevent families from inscribing the secular date – on the basis of all this the justices ruled “that there is nothing in noting the secular date to substantially impair the principle of uniformity, and the decision of the defense minister does not stand up.”¹¹⁶ 113 See above, footnote 107; SIA (above, footnote 80), transcript of the court deliberation, 4.11.1991; ibid., the court’s decision, 4.11.1991. See also the severe criticism made by Chairman of the Council Judge H. Adar on the conduct of the High Court of Justice Division in the Justice Ministry on the Ginosar Petition. Adar also did not spare his criticism from Ginosar. On this see DMA, folder 27348, file 992, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 5.13.1991, pp. 25-31, from the statement by H. Adar; ibid., protocol of the Public Council meeting, 7.14.1991, pp. 26-29, from the statement by H. Adar. 114 See the court’s decision (above, footnote 113), paragraph 3. 115 Compare above, pp. 164-166. 116 See the decision (above, footnote 113) – the source of all the citations. See also SIA (above,

198 

 Uniformity is Tested by an Era of Polarization

Fig. 34: Typical inscription including the secular dates, the military cemetery in Beer Sheva. Source: Author’s photographs, March 2002.

This was therefore the first petition to the High Court of Justice where not only were the positions of the council and Defense Ministry rejected by the High Court of Justice, but the Court also distinguished between substantial impairment and insubstantial impairment to the principle of uniformity, and therefore the ruling was established well for the future as well as for the past regarding the inscription of the secular date in addition to the Hebrew date. Due to the decision of the High Court of Justice the bereaved families were made aware of the possibility of inscribing the secular date as well on the tombstone.¹¹⁷ footnote 80), the famous decision by Justice V. Zeiler, the president of the District Court, in the Kestenbaum suit against the “Kehilat Yerushalayim” Burial Society, where he demanded the right to note the secular date on his wife’s tombstone. Justice Zeiler accepted the suit by Kestenbaum. As a result of this decision and the High Court of Justice’s verdict in Ginosar, Knesset Member Shimon Shitrit tabled in summer 1991 a private member’s bill that would allow the family to add the inscriptions of names and dates that were not in Hebrew. The defense establishment did not object to the proposal, provided that its directives would not apply to military cemeteries. On this see: DMA, folder 53451, file 4A, memorandum from 7.11.1991 by Y. Telraz, the head of the Advisory and Legislation branch regarding the legislative proposal of Shitrit; ibid., A. Lischansky to the Minister of Religious Affairs, 9.6.1991; ibid., M. Arens to the Justice Minister, 7.31.1991. 117 DMA, folder 41126, file 1010, R. and Z. Ginzburg to the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, 6.9.1993; ibid., N. Schayek to H. Yisraeli, 6.30.1993.

The Beginning of a Turnabout 

 199

Fig. 35: Typical inscription including the secular dates, the military cemetery in Holon. Source: Author’s photographs, March 2002.

Chapter 8 Towards a Revolution Incorporating Personal Expression in the Inscription The Legal Establishment versus the Public Council in the Era of the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty (the First Half of the 90s) Since the rules for the uniform inscription were fixed in the mid-50s the Division for Commemorating the Soldier and the Public Council for Commemorating the Soldier were occasionally presented with requests by the families to add to the tombstone words that would convey the personal attitude and esteem of the families to their fallen loved ones. In Chapter 6 we mentioned the request of Mrs. Guber, but she was not alone. Requests were also raised to inscribe on the tombstone things such as “he was devoted to his family,” “fell as a hero,” etc.¹ These requests were rejected in order to preserve uniformity,² and the explanation was generally accepted by the families. The desire to provide a personal expression would subsequently find a partial solution (from the standpoint of the families) in the framework of the additions that the families, relatives and friends supplied to the tombstones and their immediate vicinity, and these incorporated verbal expressions, drawings and more. We will expand on this in Chapter 11. This was the state of affairs until the early 90s, when the Division for Commemorating the Soldier and the Public Council turned down the request of the Wechselbaum family to list on the pillow the names of the siblings of their fallen son Eran who perished in the second Tze’elim disaster in November 1992. The rejection of the request touched off a struggle by the family and produced a ruling by the High Court of Justice in 1995 decreeing that one should allow an inscription incorporating personal expression. It was a short distance from this decision to the passage of amendments of the Law of Military Cemeteries to accord with this ruling. The High Court of Justice decision in 1995 and the amendments to the law were closely aligned to the changes that took place in Israeli society and its legal system, changes that are impossible to ignore. Below we will detail how the struggle of the Wechselbaum family developed, and likewise we will relate the determination of the Public Council to stick to its principles, the new voices that began to express themselves on the council during the struggle, the position taken by 1 And see above, p. 148, the request of Mrs. R. Guber. 2 DMA, folder 44823, file 222, Z. Litvin to A. Haber, 12.2.1992, appended are the Public Council’s decisions on 12.2.1992, Re: the approach by the Wechselbaum family.

The Defense Establishment’s Stance is Critiqued by the State Attorney’s Office 

 201

the senior echelons of the Defense Ministry and the top rungs of the State Attorney’s office that did not concur on this occasion with the position of the council, and the rulings of the Supreme Court in session as the High Court of Justice.

The Defense Establishment’s Stance is Critiqued by the State Attorney’s Office After their son Eran fell, the Wechselbaum family approached the Division for Commemorating the Soldier requesting that in addition to the regular text, they should be allowed to inscribe on a separate line the words “brother to Jack, Limor and Adi.” The justification for this request was that it would mitigate the family’s grief and foster its cohesion. The request was turned down by the division and by the Tombstone Subcommittee of the Public Council which explained that one should preserve the uniformity of the tombstones and the equality of the inscriptions. Since in the case of large families a similar request could not be accommodated due to space limitations, then they would be adversely discriminated against in comparison with the Wechselbaum family.³ The family did not make peace with the decision and sought to present its request before the council plenum, and for this purpose it was assisted by legal counsel. The time of the meeting with the council was set for the beginning of December 1992. On the day preceding the meeting, Nili Arad, the director of the High Court of Justice Division in the State Attorney’s office, had completed a legal opinion on the issue, and reached the conclusion that if the council would not ratify the Wechselbaum family’s request and the family would seek relief from the High Court of Justice, the prospects were very high that such relief would be granted. For this reason Arad recommended acceding to the request. Her conclusion was based on the following: an analysis of Knesset sentiment at the time that the Law of Military Cemeteries was passed and from which it emerged that the legislators did not intend the draconic uniformity but to a modicum of “conceptual” uniformity; an analysis of relevant laws and mainly the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, that was passed by the Knesset a short time previously – in March 1992; as well as on an analysis of High Court of Justice previous rulings on related issues and the ruling of the High Court of Justice on the petition by Yossi Ginosar in 1991.⁴ Subsequently it became clear that Arad was remarkably prescient in her analysis of matters, because her opinion written in early December 3 SCA, High Court of Justice file 5688/92, the petition of the Wechselbaum family, 12.2.1992, pp. 1-3; ibid., A. Haber to the legal advisor of the defense establishment, 12.3.1992. 4 See above, p. 196.

202 

 Towards a Revolution Incorporating Personal Expression in the Inscription

1992 resembled very closely the final verdict in the petition of the Wechselbaum family that was rendered in 1995. As will be recalled, the High Court of Justice ruled in the Ginosar petition that as long as no substantial impairment to the principle of uniformity regarding the tombstone had been demonstrated the feelings of the bereaved family could not be rejected by invoking the principle of uniformity. Since in the High Court of Justice’s opinion the addition of a secular date to the tombstone did not constitute a substantial impairment to uniformity, one should consider the bereaved family’s sentiments and allow the addition of a secular date. A short time later, based on the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, Justice Aharon Barak ruled in April 1992 that one should permit a foreign-language inscription of the name and date on a civilian tombstone (this ruling was delivered in the appeal presented by the burial society in the Kestenbaum Supreme Court case). Barak argued that “human dignity is not only the dignity of the person during his lifetime, but also human dignity after his death, and this is also the dignity of his beloved who preserve his memory in their hearts. This dignity is expressed among other things in the setting of the tombstone, visits to the cemetery… and in maintaining the grave. This is the very same tie – sometimes rational and sometimes irrational – that shapes our inner person, and gives expression to spiritual aspirations and yearnings. This is the ‘hand’ that the living extend to the dead, this is the external expression that reflects the inner connections between generations.” From these two recently delivered verdicts, Arad argued that the following conclusions inexorably followed: The interest of the dignity of the deceased and his family carries equal weight and importance as the interest of uniformity in military cemeteries. These interests are equal in weight and importance and one does not supersede the other. The obligation to balance between the interests as set forth in the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty and in the Ginosar High Court of Justice ruling, shows that the balance will be performed between the claimed degree of impairment to uniformity in the cemeteries and the degree of injury to family sentiments… and the degree of damage that will be caused to uniformity in the cemeteries justifying a limitation of the countervailing consideration, namely the dignity of the deceased and his family will be scrutinized… as long as a substantial impairment to uniformity has not been demonstrated one could not impose such limitations on the request of the family [Wechselbaum] over and above the degree needed. From all this it emerges that in the matter at hand one cannot say that agreement to the requests of the Wechselbaum family would constitute a tangible and substantial impairment to the uniformity of military cemeteries in a manner that would justify turning down the request.

For that reason, Arad concluded: “It is not proper to bring the matter for the High Court of Justice’s adjudication since we will not have a worthy legal and factual

The Council Turns Down the Request of the Wechselbaum Family 

 203

response that dovetails with the yardsticks set forth in the rulings of the Supreme Court.”⁵ Arad made it clear that it would also prove difficult to contend with the demand by the family at the High Court of Justice by invoking the argument of substantial impairment to uniformity due to the following facts: First, uniformity is not preserved in the military cemeteries because families were adding various items to the tombstone including inscriptions. Secondly, it would be possible to add the details of the personal inscription to the pillow by reducing the size of the letters. In this manner equality would be preserved in comparison with families with many children – especially as presently there were letters in different sizes. Third, one could separate between the standard military area and a personal area, and in the personal section no option would be granted to mention military matters or details noting the superiority of one soldier over the others.⁶ Nili Arad’s opinion was brought to the attention of the council and disseminated among its members,⁷ but Arad took things further. She was present at the meeting of the council where the Wechselbaum family’s request was discussed and presented her position. A major clash ensued, a battle that left behind a residue of hostility and distrust between the parties. We will address this below.

The Council Turns Down the Request of the Wechselbaum Family The meeting of the council at the beginning of December 1992 where the request of the Wechselbaum family was heard and discussed was one of the most emotional sessions that the council had experienced. The Wechselbaum family arrived at the meeting accompanied by its attorney who displayed great proficiency on the issue at hand, and in the discussion chamber laden with emotional tension the threat by the Wechselbaum family to turn to the High Court of Justice if it would not receive a positive response to its request hovered in the air. All this occurred only a year and a half after the High Court of Justice had undermined one of the most sanctified principles of the council by allowing a foreign-language inscription on the tombstone.

5 DMA, folder 53451, file 4, a detailed memorandum by N. Arad, Director of the High Court of Justice Department in the State Attorney’s office, 12.1.1992 regarding the inscription on the tombstone of an IDF fallen soldier – the source of all the citations. 6 Ibid. 7 DMA, folder 1624, file 1315, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 12.2.1992.

204 

 Towards a Revolution Incorporating Personal Expression in the Inscription

The council decided unanimously to reject the family’s request, and its decision was endorsed the next day by the defense minister.⁸ The reason for turning down the request was that it contradicted the principle of uniformity, as till then the names of the brothers and sisters of the fallen were not entered on the tombstone. Likewise the request negated the principle of equality – “which must remain a solid principle in military cemeteries” – as it would lead to discrimination against those families whose only child had fallen or families where more than one of their children had fallen. The council, as stated, still smarted under the impression of having its position overturned in the petition by Yossi Ginosar, and greatly feared the shattering of additional frameworks that would provoke the final collapse of the uniformity and equality principle. The current chairman, Yisrael Ben Amitai, emphasized the following in his letter to the Defense Minister Rabin where he summarized the council’s position: By assenting to the family’s petition a further breach of the set framework, of uniformity and egalitarianism in the military cemeteries would be made because the existing uniform framework (whereby to this very day the names of the brothers and sisters of the fallen are not entered) will be altered. The entry of the names of the brothers and sisters can aggrieve those families whose only child has fallen. The council believes that one should perpetuate the established tradition regarding the shape and contents of the tombstone, and one should not periodically alter them according to the requests of a solitary family. In the council’s opinion further agreement will lead to the shattering of the principle of uniformity because it will be impossible to foresee what other boundaries will be transgressed in the future following the acceptance of this application by the family… The council views the acceptance of the family’s application as a breach of the principle of uniformity and equality which was breached in the High Court of Justice decision in “Ginosar vs. the Defense Minister” and it is foreseeable that in its wake another rupture will be created, such as: the additional entry of other family members aside from brothers and sisters, the name of the spouse, children, grandfathers and grandmothers or grandchildren. In the case of families with many children this can also lead to the need for enlarging the tombstone pillow, which will definitely shatter the principle of uniformity that has been preserved in this area. The council believes that one should preserve the tradition in this regard, a tradition that has continued since the establishment of the state, which set a distinctive character for the military cemeteries as a unifying symbol for the entire nation. The council views attempts at continuously altering the set existing framework, as severely damaging to a tradition that is still in the process of formation.⁹

8 See above, footnote 3, as well as DMA, folder 44823, file 222, letter from A. Haber to the legal advisor of the defense establishment, 12.3.1992. 9 SCA, High Court of Justice file 5688/92, letter from Y. Ben Amitai on 12.2.1992 regarding the Public Council’s decision at its meeting of 12.2.1992 regarding the approach of the Wechselbaum family.

The Council Turns Down the Request of the Wechselbaum Family 

 205

The council made its decision despite the moving and heartrending words voiced by Eran’s mother: No instrument has yet been created that can photograph my heart’s feelings. But could you somehow detect an iota of what I feel? A black hole was opened in my heart, a deep abyss of sorrow, grief and interminable longing for my Eran who will never ever return. Additionally I feel that all my immediate family: I, my husband and the rest of my children are truly falling apart. And believe me we were a cohesive, united, loving, pampering and appreciative family that knew how to rejoice together and suffer together. Now I appear incapable of stopping the disintegration. It seems to me that I have nothing to get up for in the morning, and no incentive to continue. They tell me “you must be strong,” for what? For the sake of what? In general I have no desire to be strong. They tell me: “for the other children that you have!” This offers no consolation for me. For a moment it seems that my life had finished, and in the next moment – perhaps not? To be? Or not to be? But I do know that as soon as I visit Eran the son of Chava and Shmuel and even if I want to be buried alongside of him forever, I know that as soon as I see on the tombstone the names of my children Jack, Limor and Adi – I know that there will still be something for me to continue to live, there is still someone to be concerned about, one has to put the chain together even if a single link is missing, and this despite the suffering and interminable tortures that will persist till the end. Please! Help me preserve the cohesiveness of the family. Help me bear up; let me have some encouragement in this. The IDF is getting stronger from a technological standpoint. The IDF as an army is getting stronger and improving. What is so terrible about improving the attitude towards the families? The sense of humanity? What’s more important? Is it uniformity in the military cemeteries or the unity and the viability of a bereaved family in Israel? I tried to give you the best thing possible – Eran. I hope that you could give me a modicum of hope.¹⁰

From the opposing side an emotionally laden and moving statement was delivered by David Giladi, one of the council’s veterans, who lost two sons. He found it difficult to conceal his emotion when he expressed his steadfast opposition to the request. He emphasized the equality of the fallen, the law’s objective in defending this equality and the country’s right to limit the wishes of the family in everything connected to the military tombstone: I would like to tell you that I am a doubly bereaved father. One son fell during the Six-Day War, a second son fell during the Yom Kippur War. And when somebody here speaks of a cohesive family, I would like to explain to you as well what is meant by a cohesive family. The son who fell in the Yom Kippur war enlisted in the career army after the son had fallen during the Six-Day War. He went to fill his place and battled the Army to station him in the same brigade of the son that had fallen. Furthermore the son who fell in the Yom Kippur 10 SCA, High Court of Justice file 5688/92, C. Wechselbaum to the Public Council, 11.30.1992. And see the other comments by the Wechselbaum family and the legal arguments raised by its attorney (M. Lindzen in the current High Court of Justice case) in DMA, folder 1624, file 1315, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 12.2.1992.

206 

 Towards a Revolution Incorporating Personal Expression in the Inscription

War was awarded the Order of Valor, when in the Yom Kippur war among the 2,600-2,700 slain there were eight people who received the Order of Valor. This means he did something. Beyond this, the first son to fall was a twin and to our sorrow he left behind an only daughter. Why shouldn’t someone named Giladi show up and proclaim on the son’s tombstone “hero of Israel brother of Amnon Giladi who fell, who enlisted in his stead and the twin brother of a daughter?” Could there be something more cohesive than this? And if someone talks of bereavement… we are all bereaved families, but perhaps in any case there is a distinction between a family where one son was taken and a family where two were taken. Maybe there is some sort of small difference. An IDF casualty is not only a slain soldier for his family. The very fact that he is brought for burial in the military cemetery means that the people and the state in some place are partially partners to this – the days of commemoration. Because if there was no partnership of the state in every son who fell, for what reason do we have to make a general Memorial Day or all sorts of things like this? There is some sort of partnership. One cannot say that whatever the parents want, this is what must be done… I ask myself what about the future generations? The grandchildren will come, the great grandchildren of these slain soldiers will come, and they will see that here it’s written this way and there it’s written the other way. Why is it written this way for that one and another way for that person? We’ve already met on these topics where families have arrived to claim that because of this change, the children aren’t coming and there are children who are ashamed.¹¹

A no less bitter dispute erupted between the council members and Nili Arad, head of the High Court of Justice Department in the State Attorney’s office who was present at that meeting and expounded the legal aspects of the case that the council had become embroiled in before the council members as we have detailed extensively above. Arad emphasized that the council could not ignore these aspects even if they are “considered cold and cruel in such situations,” because if the council would ignore them and the High Court of Justice would rule that the decisions of the council are illegal, the source of the council’s authority and power would be supplanted. “And therefore I would propose that you should not ignore in your decisions the juridical and legal aspects. Base your decision on the legal and juridical aspects, because from them in practice your principle of uniformity in fact derives. Uniformity is not something that you have thought of and invented.” Arad again directed the council members to the Knesset discussion in 1950¹² from which it emerged that the legislators did not intend a draconian uniformity but “a certain degree of uniformity,” a conceptual uniformity, “not uniformity always at every price in every situation in every case.” Arad confronted the council members with the fact that uniformity was not being preserved in 11 Protocol of the Public Council meeting (above, footnote 10), pp. 12-13, from the statement by D. Giladi. See also YLA, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 4.26.1995, p. 37, the statement by D. Giladi. 12 See above, pp. 110 ff.

The Council Turns Down the Request of the Wechselbaum Family 

 207

the military cemeteries and unfolded before them a scheme that would allow a limited personal inscription that did not injure uniformity and others and would be implemented by yardsticks that the council would devise, yardsticks that currently did not exist. She was convinced that if it was not performed in this manner the council’s prospects for defeat in the High Court of Justice were high. And this was not a trifling matter, because this loss would compound the loss in the Ginosar High Court of Justice case and could expropriate from the council the source of its authority to rule on requests by the families of the fallen on matters related to the tombstone.¹³ Zvia Gross, the deputy legal advisor to the defense establishment, whose words – so it emerged – reflected sentiments in senior echelons of the Defense Ministry, reinforced Arad’s position. She emphasized that uniformity in itself had no significance without the essential underlying value – the value of equality – and only from that standpoint could uniformity be tested: Not to create a situation where you have a privileged soldier and a non-privileged soldier, a poor soldier and a rich soldier, a tombstone made of stone or something ostentatious, one who is praised and one who is denigrated… what is insubstantial should be weighed on the balance scales and evaluated in terms of the extent to which it damages uniformity. The court in the case of Ginosar had its say…: it is necessary to see to what degree the change causes substantial injury and strike a balance between the desire of the family, the individual desire and the individual sorrow of the family and the damage to uniformity in order to avoid harming equality. Now let us take the case at hand… we see that the family is clinging by its fingernails to the subject and it has immense importance for its capability to bear suffering, simply immense importance. It reaches the extent that it can provide consolation if we agree, if you would agree to a certain alleviation… I am putting this terrible thing in proportion versus the issue of whether there should be another line… and it is not substantial… we have to be less sticklers and less obdurate… all [in the legal department of the Defense Ministry] are of the opinion that it is inadmissible, it is not plausible not to agree to a request of the sort because we are already agreeing to all sorts of requests. It is insubstantial in comparison to the terrible suffering… the idea of uniformity was correct, it should be preserved… [but] we have to make an opening and there has to be a methodical, serious discussion… about the entire concept… after 40 years and in rhythm with modern times there should be uniformity and together with this non-uniformity… a uniform fashion of non-uniformity. That is to say, to leave every family a line or two to provide expression to their personal feelings.¹⁴

The council members did not conceal their deep frustration over what they had heard, but they continued to persist with their position that vigorously negated 13 Protocol of the Public Council meeting (above, footnote 10), pp. 27-39, from the statement by N. Arad. 14 Ibid., pp. 39-43, from the statement by Z. Gross.

208 

 Towards a Revolution Incorporating Personal Expression in the Inscription

assenting to the request of the Wechselbaum family for the reasons that we already detailed above. The words of Yitzhak Avinoam and Yitzhak Neeman, council veterans, faithfully reflected the council’s stand: “What we are being asked now, in accordance with the opinion of the attorneys here, is to change the entire philosophy of the military cemeteries on the topic of uniformity, one of the most respected things in the history of the State of Israel. Since the military cemeteries were erected, this is the character that was awarded all military cemeteries and it creates an attitude of respect as well towards the family and for the deceased soldier. The guiding rationale here is sentiment. Nothing will avail. We cannot work under the pressure of a date when a High Court of Justice [ruling] will appear.”¹⁵ “I understand that the High Court of Justice is denuding us as a council of all content. And I don’t understand what precisely is our status, for what are we sitting? To drink a cup of tea? If we enjoy a status then we have to voice it and stand behind it, even if the High Court of Justice decision won’t be to our liking.”¹⁶ From the standpoint of the council the issue of uniformity and equality as the members grasped it was so fundamental, so deeply rooted in their souls and deep emotional layers, that any talk of the type that attorneys Arad and Gross voiced was interpreted as a desecration of something holy. For that reason the strong prospects of another defeat in the High Court of Justice did not move them at all, and the significance attached to this did not deter them. They believed in the correctness of their path, just as they believed that the High Court of Justice had committed an error in the Ginosar affair. Although they did not mention this explicitly and although Arad promised that if she represented the council at the High Court of Justice she would do so while maintaining complete faith with any decision adopted by the council – council members were apprehensive about such representation which from the outset disputed the correctness of their path. Their lack of confidence in Arad, who had already lost for them at the High Court of Justice in the Ginosar case and was to represent them this time as well, hovered over the discussion chamber and it should come as no surprise.

15 Ibid., p. 51, from the statement by Y. Avinoam. 16 ibid., p. 49, from the statement by Y. Neeman.

The High Court of Justice Verdict 

 209

The High Court of Justice Verdict: The Majority Sustains the Council’s Position but Leaves an Opening for Appeal The very day that the council rejected the request of the Wechselbaum family, the family turned for relief to the High Court of Justice. The High Court of Justice assented to the request to hold a discussion immediately, because the stone setting ceremony was to take place four days later, with the end of the “30 days of mourning,” and still a pillow for the tombstone of the late Eran had not yet been prepared.¹⁷ The representatives of the Wechselbaum family raised four legal arguments before the High Court of Justice that convened to discuss the issue with a panel of justices comprised of Aharon Barak, Eliezer Goldberg and Yaakov Malz on December 3, 1992. These arguments were not very different from those that Nili Arad had presented to the council: First, the request did not constitute an impairment to the principle of the uniform inscription on the tombstones of IDF slain, because the request in its entirety dealt with adding a personal detail to the son’s tombstone, and was intended to emphasize the strong bond that existed between the late Eran and his siblings. Assent to the request would alleviate the suffering of the family. Secondly, the High Court of Justice in the Ginosar case had already ruled that an obligation rested on the defense minister to consider not only the need for uniformity in the inscription on the tombstones but also the feelings of the fallen soldier’s relatives. If the relatives’ request did not constitute a substantial impairment to the uniformity of the inscription, the minister had to accede to the request. Third, the position taken by the defense minister contradicted the instruction of the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, which determines that “one does not harm the life, body or dignity of the person as a person” and “one does not impair the rights according to this basic law save by a law that befits the values of the State of Israel that was intended for a worthy purpose, and to the extent that it does not exceed the requirements.” The decision of the defense minister is excessive, because it overemphasizes the need for a uniform inscription on the tombstones of IDF soldiers and does not make allowance for the desire and sentiments of the family of the fallen soldier. Fourth, in practice a marked deviation from uniformity already exists in the military cemeteries “and the families of fallen give liberty to their sentiments and add to the graves of their beloved various embellishments, every family as it so desires. This phenomenon has become widespread apparently in recent years, and it can emphasize on the one hand the need for the family of IDF slain to add a personal motif to commem-

17 The petition of the Wechselbaum family (above, footnote 3), pp. 1-9.

210 

 Towards a Revolution Incorporating Personal Expression in the Inscription

orate their beloved in the cemetery and on the other hand the fact that in practice the principle of uniformity… is not being preserved in its pure state.”¹⁸ In refutation of these arguments the Defense Ministry and the State Attorney’s office contended opposing arguments, resting of course on the arguments made by the Public Council but not exclusively on them. They made it clear that the Public Council for Commemorating the Soldier has adopted for itself over the years a series of rules and guiding principles, some written while some were customary and traditional. The guideline was the established uniform and egalitarian model of the military cemeteries. The rules sought to distinguish the military cemetery from an external standpoint from other cemeteries and emphasize in this manner the attitude of the state to its soldiers. However, the council’s primary motivation was to consider the feelings of all the deceased soldiers’ families. “Not to discriminate between two types of blood, not to allow commemoration in a pronounced fashion only to persons of means and likewise to emphasize that IDF soldiers were equal – irrespective of the circumstances of their deaths.” Therefore only minimal details – objective in their character – were inscribed on the tombstones of the soldiers. According to these principles the council does not allow a special personal inscription on the tombstone that will not correspond to the objective of equality. Nevertheless the council made it clear that since we are dealing with deep sentiments of the bereaved families, it did not follow the strict letter of the law and allows slight deviations that did not impair the uniformity of the inscription and equality, that would not injure the feelings of other bereaved families and that did not constitute a precedent that would burst the dam and invite many additional requests for in that fashion the principle of the uniform inscription would be impaired and voided of content. However, the request of the Wechselbaum family is not included in this definition of possible changes, because we are dealing with a personal addition with a subjective tone that seeks to emphasize in the inscription the special bond between the fallen and his siblings – something that totally contradicts the principles of uniformity and equality. In the Ginosar case, argued the state, the High Court of Justice granted the request to note the secular date on the tombstone precisely because it did not create a substantial impairment to the principle of uniformity “and from the positive we can infer the negative – when a substantial impairment to the principle of uniformity exists one should not amend the inscription on the tombstone.”¹⁹ During the course of deliberation representatives of the family wanted to make clear to the justices that the matter of uniformity was scrupulously pre18 Ibid., pp. 2-7. 19 SCA (above, footnote 3), a memorandum from the Defense Ministry, “The Inscription on the Tombstones of IDF Fallen.”

The High Court of Justice Verdict 

 211

served in the tombstones on the graves of the slain of 1948, the Sinai Campaign and the Six-Day War, but in the case of the slain soldiers who fell subsequently uniformity was not preserved – not on the tombstone itself nor in its surroundings. “On a number of occasions a description of the circumstances of his death is appended to the tombstone (such as ‘fell in the defense of the Northern communities’); near the tombstones there are marble, metal and wooden plates added by the families, where one can convey the family’s sentiments. One can find personal artifacts of the deceased (such as ranks, helmet, and even songs that he loved). Sometimes a sign appears with words of mourning from his comrades to the unit.”²⁰ The Wechselbaum family did not dispute the inherent justice of the uniformity and equality principle but contended before the justices that this principle had found suitable and sufficient expression in the very fact that in the military cemeteries the holders of every IDF rank were buried side-by-side, and by the fact that the tombstones were uniform in shape, size and structure. In contradistinction, the family did not admit the principle of uniformity and equality when it came to the inscription on the tombstone in the way that the Public Council conceived it. “The inscription on the tombstone,” argued the family, “is a place where every family can give expression to its grief and sorrow in its own way. Adding the names of brothers and sisters… constitutes a way… of coping with pain and sorrow… in this there is no substantial impairment to the principle of uniformity. The principle of uniformity and equality is not adamant and sanctified but can be softened and modified…”²¹ The verdict was delivered that very day (December 3, 1992). By a majority of Justices Goldberg and Malz against the opinion of Justice Barak it was decided “that one should preserve the substantial realization of the principle of equality. In the case at hand there is a substantial deviation from this principle, and therefore the petition must be denied.” The State Attorney’s Office was surprised by the decision, and apparently so was the council. The justices decided that they would provide the explanations at a later date.²² In response the Wechselbaum family informed the High Court of Justice that it would not allow the erection of the tombstone prior to hearing the detailed explanations of the court that the family hoped to obtain as early as possible. The family also hinted that it intended to ask for an additional hearing in the High Court of Justice.²³ 20 Ibid., from the (minority) decision of Justice A. Barak. 21 Ibid. 22 SCA (above, footnote 3), the court’s decision, 12.3.1992. 23 SCA (above, footnote 3), announcement to the court on 12.8.1992 from C. Wechselbaum and S. Wechselbaum.

212 

 Towards a Revolution Incorporating Personal Expression in the Inscription

More than half a year later, at the beginning of June 1993, the justices published their reasons. Malz relied on the decision of the High Court of Justice in the Ginosar petition where the court had decided that the uniformity principle for tombstones was relevant and plausible and that the proposed addition to the inscription would impair uniformity. Malz further emphasized: From my perspective the main argument that expresses a lack of uniformity is the argument that this sort of inscription may and can discriminate against many other families who have no personal inscription on the tombstones of their beloved. This is especially the case when we are dealing with feelings of bereaved families of only children who have fallen. It is easy to understand that for a father or mother who visit the grave of their only child, detailing the brothers and sisters of another soldier on an adjacent tombstone will further aggravate their pain and compound their grief. The same applies to thousands of other families where the names of brothers and sisters were not recorded on the graves of their beloved. And from my point of view this explanation suffices to justify the recommendation by the council and the decision by the minister. A further explanation, although of lesser importance in my opinion than the previous argument, is the following: From time immemorial the rule has been preserved in the military cemeteries that one does not enter on a military tombstone the names of mourners save for the parents of the soldier. Agreement to this request can create a precedent that will have repercussions not only for the future, but also with regards to the past. The families emphasized before us that we are dealing with a cohesive family where relations between the deceased and his siblings were close and tight. I am sure that most of the slain in Israel’s battles come from such families, who hitherto did not dare to demand noting this fact on the tombstone of their brothers. If we agree to the petitioners, there will undoubtedly come hundreds of such requests to amend the inscription on the tombstones. And the matter will not end with brothers and sisters; what about wives and children, or an aunt who raised him or his friend and comrade in arms?

Justice Malz did not conceal the depths of his identification with the positions of the Public Council whose entire membership was composed of people who themselves were bereaved parents concerned with the uniform and egalitarian character of the military cemeteries. In explaining his position he chose to note the story of council member David Giladi: “It is hard to think of a more tragic case than this, in order to justify the inscription on the tomb of the eldest son that would mention the falling of the younger brother or the fact that he had won the Order of Valor, just as it is difficult to describe how the council would have withstood the requests of a doubly bereaved father for such an inscription. He told us that he did not ask for such an inscription because he was and is still persuaded that ‘uniformity and equality in the inscription on the tombstones are what accords them the honor that they are worthy of.’”²⁴ 24 D. Giladi further noted that it was not the shape of the stone that guaranteed uniformity, but what was inscribed upon it.

The High Court of Justice Verdict 

 213

Justice Goldberg emphasized the principle of equality and uniformity that characterize implementation of the Law of Military Cemeteries. This principle, that guided the Public Council and the Defense Ministry since the establishment of the state, expressed according to his understanding a national social approach regarding the equality of honor that the state bestows on every soldier who fell or died during his service to the country. “Equality of honor is expressed also by the shape of the tombstone that does not distinguish between soldiers, when the ‘shape’ in this context is also the content that is inscribed on the tombstone. In order to preserve a uniform ‘shape’ to this tombstone the uniform inscription was established…” In light of these matters Justice Goldberg could only repeat the words that have been decided by that very same court in 1975 in the petition by the Ben Zeev family: “Once the petitioners chose that their beloved should be buried in a military cemetery among his fallen comrades, they must make peace with this arrangement.” “Because our matter deals with the order, that is inherent in the character of the place and the objective behind the law, one cannot obligate the defense minister to agree always to a request by the soldier’s family, if it constitutes a deviation from the norms applying to this place. One must examine every matter and its circumstances, and there is no place for excessive inflexibility on such a sensitive and painful topic, not because there is a need to balance between two conflicting principles [as we shall see below Justice Barak believed] but in order to ascertain if the family’s request constitutes a substantial deviation from the principle of human equality and uniformity which is the sole justification for refusal…” As stated Justice Barak dissented from his colleagues. He argued that the decision by the defense minister who adopted the recommendations of the Public Council was implausible, because it did not properly balance between the principle of uniformity and the principle of human dignity – both of the deceased soldier and that of his family – as the Wechselbaum family and Nili Arad had contended. Therefore he believed that one should return the petition to the defense minister so he could re-examine it. “Such a re-examination must guarantee uniformity in a substantial matter, without waiving the needs of providing a personal expression to the sentiment and feelings of the grieving family.” The principle of human dignity and liberty that was passed as a basic law eight months prior to the submission of the petition therefore stood at the basis of Barak’s decision to accept the petition. And he emphasized in his conclusion: “What was considered worthy in the past can prove unsatisfactory in the present.” To reinforce his argument Barak made use of the legislative history of the Law of Military Cemeteries – using it as a tool for interpreting the law (as Arad had done to reinforce her arguments to the council) – and examples from military cemeteries throughout the world. He argued that it was indeed true that the purpose

214 

 Towards a Revolution Incorporating Personal Expression in the Inscription

behind the Law of Military Cemeteries regarding tombstones was uniformity and equality, because the family of a soldier cannot determine the shape of the tombstone and the inscription on it (according to the law “the shape and dimensions of a military tombstone will be determined by a duly authorized officer”). Furthermore, the justice minister, when he had presented the law upon its first reading, also insisted upon the purpose of uniformity and equality. Nevertheless, argued Barak, uniformity is not the only purpose that should guide the consideration of the defense minister, because in his opinion the Law of Military Cemeteries does not explicitly demand uniformity in military tombstones; the proof – the words of Knesset Member Zisling against uniformity,²⁵ that were made during the discussion on the law on its first reading – were not totally rejected. As may be recalled, the justice minister addressed Zisling’s comments and said: “And if there is any need at all to add an individual twist to the tombstones… then in any case, the uniformity must be the prominent and decisive form.”²⁶ Likewise the High Court of Justice, that dealt with the petition of Yossi Ginosar, already decided that “one must examine every request by the parents according to circumstances” and that “it is obligatory for the minister to consider on the one hand the feelings of the deceased soldier’s relatives, who want to note a personal or some other matter in the inscription on the tombstone erected on the grave, as against the need for uniformity in the inscription.” In light of all this Barak concluded that It would appear to me that counter posed to the consideration regarding uniformity stands the consideration regarding human dignity. Indeed, human dignity is a fundamental value in our law… currently recognition of human dignity as a basic right is anchored in a Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty. This basic law “has the purpose of protecting human dignity.” It ruled that one does not impair the “human dignity of a person as a person” and that every person is entitled to the protection of his dignity. In this manner human dignity was awarded a constitutional status with super legal normative power. At the base of this concept [human dignity and liberty] lies the recognition that man is a free creation, who developed his body and spirit according to his will and this within the social framework to which he was connected. Human dignity extends over a wide variety of human aspects. For our purpose human dignity finds expression in everything connected to the dignity of the deceased and the dignity of the family that wants to extend him a hand and establish for him a memorial… in the petition before us, we will examine the proper balance between the principle of uniformity and human dignity. This balance cannot be performed by totally ignoring human dignity, and standing totally on the principle of uniformity. Negating consideration for the principle of human dignity (of the deceased and his family) requires explicit language, clear and unequivocal. Such language does not occur in the Law of Military Cemeteries. Therefore compromise and mutual concessions are required, while setting 25 See above, p. 110 ff. 26 See above, p. 113.

The High Court of Justice Verdict 

 215

a yardstick that reconciles the two of them. Setting this yardstick, one should assign significant weight to the principle of uniformity. For a civilian cemetery is unlike a military cemetery. A military cemetery expresses first and foremost the esteem of the nation for the sons and daughters who gave their lives in its service. It is a national expression for national honor and grief. It is an expression of the joint purpose that the soldiers who gave their lives for the country beheld and of the fraternity and equality that existed among them during their lives and upon their deaths. Such uniformity also promotes an important aspect of human dignity (of the deceased and his family). In the military cemeteries sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, fathers and mothers are buried. The family yearns for a personal tie with its beloved. A soldier who dies is united with an entire national consciousness. He becomes one of its national values. Nonetheless the deceased soldier is held most dear by the bereaved family, which desires to express its personal sentiment on the tombstone. This consideration is not decisive. A family that seeks to give special expression to its personal attitude at the expense of uniformity can insist that its beloved be buried in a civilian cemetery. Burial in a military cemetery involves awarding preference to uniformity over personal expression. Nonetheless it is the right of the family that its beloved should be buried in a military cemetery, and it is its right that expression should be given – alongside uniformity – to its sentiments as well. Indeed in the military cemetery one should aspire to accomplish and implement both principles together, while awarding primacy to uniformity and equality. It seems to me that the proper balance between the principle of uniformity and human dignity – and the need to give decisive weight to the principle of uniformity without waiving human dignity – finds expression in the (fundamental) yardstick, according to which one should guarantee a substantial degree of uniformity, without forgoing expression of the grieving family’s sentiments and feelings. Such is the balance that this court insisted upon in the Ginosar affair where it noted that the question is whether the desired inscription “does not substantially impair uniformity.” This balance can be maintained in various ways. The choice between the various ways should be made by the defense minister. Thus for example one can guarantee a substantial uniformity by setting the shape, size and main components of the uniform inscription on the tombstone. Alongside this one can allow every family its expression at the margins of the tombstone or at its side, for personal communion and personal sentiments. Of course, the personal inscription should not impair the national character of the military cemetery.

Barak also made use of precedents from military cemeteries worldwide (in practice, solely from the British cemeteries). He claimed that the clash between the principle of uniformity and the principle of human dignity (of the deceased soldier and his family) and in all that concerns military cemeteries has existed throughout the world ever since the phenomenon of military cemeteries began to develop in the 19th century. Based on research literature he demonstrated that in the European countries emphasis was placed on the uniform shaping of the cemeteries – and especially the soldiers’ graves and tombstones. “Nevertheless – and this is the issue that is important to us – families of the soldiers were given the option of inscribing on the tombstone of their beloved a personal inscription of their choice, under the name of the soldier and the symbol of his unit… indeed

216 

 Towards a Revolution Incorporating Personal Expression in the Inscription

there was a perceived need to ‘merge the tragedy of the individual into the joint national issue.’ This merger found expression in allowing the deceased soldier’s relatives to provide a personal expression to their sentiments on the uniform military tombstone, and this trend to allow individual commemoration alongside collective commemoration was reinforced after the Second World War in England and in other European countries.”²⁷ It is most surprising that Barak ignores the fact that the very same research literature on which he himself relies and that he cited in the verdict explicitly notes that as opposed to England and its footholds overseas, in the German military cemeteries it was not permissible to add any individual inscriptions whatsoever to graves.²⁸ Barak did not content himself with propounding his explanations for agreeing to the Wechselbaum family’s request. He insisted on the need that followed to institute amendments in the existing law that would apply not only to the future but also to the past. His position was based both on the explanations that he detailed as well as the existing reality where “many of the bereaved families have deviated from the existing directives and gave personal expression to their sentiments at the sides of the grave. This constitutes living testimony that the need for personal expression is not only the need of the petitioners, but a general need. Up to now those responsible ignored the situation that had been created de facto.” Since the Defense Ministry did not intend to remove the embellishments that 27 SCA (above, footnote 3), the full court decision with judicial explanations on 6.6.1993 – the source of all the citations. 28 Mosse (1990), pp. 82-84. Compare also the words of Y. Neeman, the attorney for the Wechselbaum family, stated in the second petition by the family to the High Court of Justice (SCA, Additional High Court of Justice Deliberations file 3299/93) in paragraph 5.3.4 to “the Main Arguments on Behalf of the Petitioners.” Neeman emphasized there, and quite rightly (although this would not have helped him in the petition – quite the reverse), that “the principle of total uniformity was preserved in Germany via iron rules that did not allow any place for personal expression by the families of the fallen.” Subsequently Naomi Levitzky would note (with reference to Barak’s stance at the aforementioned High Court of Justice case) in the biography that she wrote about Barak, that in Israel the German model rather than the British model was chosen. See Levitzky (2001), pp. 275-276. One can assume she heard this from Barak himself. However, Barak elected as aforesaid (for reasons best known to him) to ignore the German model in the decision. See also the words of Justice S. Levin in his decision on the aforementioned petition (SCA, Additional High Court of Justice Deliberations file 3299/93, High Court of Justice 5688/93) handed down on 3.27.1995, who also relied on Mosse (1990), pp. 82-84: “The author relates there that in the German military cemeteries following the First World War they did not allow adding individual inscriptions to the graves as opposed to the subsequent British approach that believed that one should provide a place for individual feelings.” The position of the Public Council, upon which we shall dwell below, was that in any event it was not obligated to take into account concepts accepted in other countries (Justice Levin notes this).

The High Court of Justice Verdict 

 217

have been added by the families at the sides of the tombstone and upon it, “a gap therefore has been created between practice in the cemeteries and the rulings in the law books. Such a gap is not desirable. It would be worthwhile to modify the normative structure, in a manner that would strike a proper balance between the demands for uniformity and the feelings of the bereaved families… in any event one could guarantee that in a substantial fashion uniformity would be preserved, while providing expression to the sentiments of the individual. For this purpose one should formulate and put into writing clear rules regarding the inscription on the tombstone, the form of a personal expression and its place on the tombstone.” Barak further added that personal expression does not necessarily have to be in the form of the inscription but it can assume other methods; likewise a personal inscription does not have to be entered on the pillow of the tombstone or on the tombstone but can appear alongside – everything of course according to clear and familiar yardsticks. “In this fashion uniformity will be guaranteed and all injuries to the sentiments of the other families will be avoided.” Since Barak was in the minority, he had no recourse but to declare that the situation where a deceased soldier’s family does not perceive the possibility of expressing its feelings is unsatisfactory. “It would be proper for those dealing with the matter – be it in the Defense Ministry (in the framework of the existing legislation) or the Knesset (in the framework of changes to the law) should give their renewed attention to the matter. The matter is delicate and important. What was considered proper in the past may be unsatisfactory in the present. We are dealing with sons and daughters who gave their life on the altar of the country. We are dealing with families that sacrificed all that was dear to them. The question is important and addresses the most vital topic. It is proper that it should undergo renewed examination.”²⁹ The Wechselbaum family did not reconcile itself to the majority decision in its case. Immediately after the publication of the High Court of Justice explanations that rejected its petition the family petitioned the High Court of Justice requesting an additional hearing. The request comprised a number of reasons. The principal one pointed to the contradiction that was created between the position of Justice Malz in the current High Court of Justice case and the decision of the High Court of Justice in the Ginosar petition. According to the family’s attorney the High Court of Justice had established in the Ginosar petition a legal precedent that imposed a balance to be struck between the principle of uniformity and the rights of the family to give personal expression to its sentiments, whereas Justice Malz decided that any request whatsoever to add an inscription should be examined solely with reference to the principle of uniformity and equality, and on the basis of a 29 See above, footnote 27 – the source of all the citations.

218 

 Towards a Revolution Incorporating Personal Expression in the Inscription

deviation from this principle the request would succeed or fail. Therefore a clear decision is needed between two legal precedents that would guide the defense minister how to act in the future on requests of this type – especially as the justices themselves in the High Court of Justice in the Wechselbaum High Court of Justice case disagreed over the question if one should balance between the principle of uniformity and the need to consider the sentiments of the family. In the words of the petition: “These two legal precedents cannot coexist together and leave ambiguity and uncertainty in the law regarding this painful issue. A clear decision on the question if the option is open to the family members to incorporate a personal emotional statement in the tombstone inscription (the Ginosar affair), or maybe the law is as is according to the majority decision in the case at hand, that in military cemeteries there should not be any personal expression on the bereaved parents, is called for.” An additional difficulty that the petitioners pointed to was that if one accepted the principle of Justice Malz (who believed that uniformity was total), then this created a contradiction to the factual situation that permitted by law variants in the inscription by noting ranks as well as distinguishing between circumstances of death and distinguishing between those who were born in Israel and those who immigrated to Israel. “In light of this a special difficulty was created by a ruling based on total uniformity and that denies a distinction based on a sentimental expression.” The attorneys of the Wechselbaum family argued further on that the majority justices could not ignore the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty that had been passed by the Knesset on the eve of Eran’s death. Such ignoring provided a sufficient pretext to hold an additional hearing, for the law “created a constitutional revolution in the legal system… it establishes new and far-reaching directives regarding the extent of the injury allowed, if at all, to human dignity.”³⁰ Justice Dov Levin dealt with the request for an additional hearing after the state presented a neutral position on this request. Out of consideration for the grief of the Wechselbaum family the State Attorney’s office announced that it would leave the decision over whether to hold an additional hearing to the court’s discretion. In mid-November 1993, Justice Levin decided in favor of holding an additional hearing. The judge’s decision was based on two reasons: First, the emotionally charged and most painful nature of the issue always gives rise to queries “to what extent should one stick to the principle of uniformity and equality on the tombstone, to the point of setting an absolute standardization of the inscription, while stripping any personal elements, regarding the deceased or his loved ones, 30 SCA, Additional Deliberations file 3299/93, A Petition for an Additional Deliberation on behalf of S. and C. Wechselbaum, 6.16.1993 – The source of all the citations.

From One High Court of Justice to the Next 

 219

from the tombstone of the slain soldier” – especially as the High Court of Justice had accepted the petition by Yossi Ginosar to change the standard inscription. Secondly, “I fear that as long as ruling that examines this important issue in its broadest aspects has not been rendered, while fully and thoroughly addressing the concepts of ‘uniformity,’ ‘equality’ and ‘human dignity’ in the given context, the question will revert and will be placed at the doorstep of this court in one form or another. The families of IDF dead and the public, that are sensitive to the honor and memory of the soldiers, deserve, just as the Public Council for Commemorating the Soldier deserves, to be guided by an extensive and thoroughly adjudicated legal tradition regarding considerations, ethical yardsticks and legal principles for determining what can and what cannot be added to the inscription on the tombstone of the fallen soldier. Such a tradition, that is of primary importance, but at the same time pertains to a sensitive and difficult matter, has not yet crystallized on the desired level.”³¹

From One High Court of Justice to the Next: Private Members’ Bills on Behalf of a Personal Inscription During the latter half of 1993, following the rejection of the first petition by the Wechselbaum family and the decision by Justice Dov Levin to allow an additional hearing, two similar private members’ bills to amend the Law of Military Cemeteries in a manner that would allow interested families to add a personal inscription on the tombstones were tabled at the Knesset. One proposal was made by Knesset Member Limor Livnat (Likud) and the second by Knesset Member Avraham Poraz (Shinui). Both Knesset members represented parties motivated by individual liberties and rights. Livnat’s proposal did not even reach a preliminary reading, while Poraz’s proposal was defeated in the preliminary deliberation. Livnat’s proposal was tabled at the Knesset in July 1993 and its main point was an amendment to paragraph 5 to the “Law of Military Cemeteries, 5710-1950” so that to the existing paragraph there would be added a subparagraph (C) stipulating that: “The relative of a deceased soldier is allowed to add to the text on the military tombstone… a personal inscription on condition that the addition will not harm national security, the feelings of others or the character of the place.” Such a proposal would provide an answer to the request by the Wechselbaum family and to similar requests that did not reach the High Court of Justice, and legally secure Barak’s minority opinion as voiced in the initial High Court of Justice case.

31 SCA, Additional Deliberations file 3299/93, the decision by Justice D. Levin, 11.15.1993.

220 

 Towards a Revolution Incorporating Personal Expression in the Inscription

In her explanations to the proposal Livnat tried to rely on the verdicts of the Supreme Court pertaining to the civilian cemeteries. The Supreme Court had ruled on various occasions with regards to the civilian cemeteries that “one should not enforce the adoption of norms, that detract from the commemoration method that the relative erecting the tombstone selects, on the one hand, and that reflect a desire to impose patterns of beliefs and opinions upon someone else, on the other hand, as long as we are not dealing with an insult to religious principles or severe injury to another.”³² Nevertheless it is clear that Livnat by relying on judicial verdicts relevant to the tombstones in civilian cemeteries ignored the fundamental differences between a civilian cemetery and a military cemetery – differences that explained why the Law of Military Cemeteries from the outset permitted a personal inscription on the tomb of a soldier whose family elected to bury him in a civilian cemetery. Livnat’s proposal as stated was never discussed in the plenum. A short while later Knesset Member Poraz tabled a private member’s bill in the spirit of Justice Barak’s minority opinion.³³ Poraz subsequently argued, when the preliminary discussion on his proposal took place at the end of 1994, that the legislator is not permitted to evade taking a clear position on the painful subject and leave it for the decision of the court, for “we are committing a major sin by the fact that we are passing the buck to the judicial system. The judicial system in the final result must interpret the law that we have to set. It must interpret the law that we legislate. We were sent by the public to set the norms, and I think it is unworthy and unfair to dodge a decision, even if the decision is not an easy one.”³⁴ Later on, following a short discussion in the plenum the proposal was defeated in the preliminary reading, due to two arguments marshaled by the deputy defense minister: The first argument was a formal argument, namely that the issue was pending a decision by the High Court of Justice, in the framework of the additional hearing on the petition of the Wechselbaum family, and it would be advisable to await the High Court of Justice’s pronouncement. The second argument was a substantial argument, namely “our apprehension is that [a family] will want to have it noted explicitly that its son fell in this battle while another family’s son died in an accident or in some form of training, and this will result in striking inequality. This is our main problem, that our freedom can assist one family and cause permanent injury to 32 KA, Legislative Proposal on Military Cemeteries (Amendment – Content of the Tombstone), 5753-1993, tabled at the Knesset on 7.28.1993. 33 SCA, Additional High Court of Justice Deliberations file 3299/93 (High Court of Justice 5688/93), protocol of the Public Council meeting, 12.27.1993, p. 10, a survey of Poraz’s legislative proposal by N. Pearlman. 34 Knesset Protocols, 10.12.1994, p. 164.

Ratifying the Public Council’s Decisions and Criticism of Justice Barak 

 221

another family.”³⁵ In a deliberation that the ministerial committee for legislation held on the Poraz proposal, the Defense Ministry emphasized that it opposed the proposal, as in its opinion the matter should not be resolved by legislation; and especially as the issue in any event was pending renewed discussion at the High Court of Justice, and therefore one should await the decision of the court. However, the ministerial committee decided not to remove the issue from the agenda but to solicit the opinion of the relevant bereaved parents, as well as to request the position of the Public Council for Commemorating the Soldier regarding the Poraz proposal. In other words, the council was requested to advise if a change had occurred in its unequivocal negative stance since the first ruling of the High Court of Justice and since it was decided to hold an additional deliberation at the High Court of Justice. Poraz himself was requested by the ministerial committee to defer raising his bill for Knesset discussion until the position of the Public Council had been received.³⁶ It was further decided that should Poraz refuse the request and raise his proposal beforehand, the government would oppose this proposal, because the government was obligated to the majority position in the first High Court of Justice decision and to the position of the Public Council “that one must preserve the principle of equality and uniformity on the tombstones in the military cemeteries.”³⁷

Ratifying the Public Council’s Decisions and Criticism of Justice Barak The decision of the ministerial committee for legislation formed the backdrop to the convening of the council plenum at the end of December 1993. The great surprise over the court’s decision to allow an additional deliberation, the assumption that the ratification of the previous decision of the council would lead to government opposition to the Poraz proposal and the anger against the Department of High Court of Justice cases in the State Attorney’s office that presented too tepid a position before the court on the Wechselbaum family’s request for an additional discussion at the High Court of Justice³⁸ – all these left their imprint when the 35 Ibid., p. 183. 36 See above, footnote 33; DMA, folder 53451, file 6, N. Pearlman to H. Yisraeli, 11.2.1993; ibid., A. Lischansky to Y. Rabin, 11.14.1993. 37 Letter from A. Lischansky (above, footnote 36). 38 Protocol of the Public Council meeting (above, footnote 33), pp. 8, 11. Regarding the position of the High Court of Justice Department, council member N. Lifschitz said (p. 8): “If Nili Arad appeared [before Justice Levin] in the name of the Justice Ministry and stated: The verdict is correct but I am not opposed to your giving them another opportunity, so once he heard there was no opposition, was he expected to play the bad guy and voice opposition?”

222 

 Towards a Revolution Incorporating Personal Expression in the Inscription

council plenum convened at the close of 1993. At the end of the discussion the council again ratified unanimously the decision negating a personal inscription that had been adopted the year previously, on the eve of the first deliberation at the High Court of Justice.³⁹ Council members present at the meeting – 18 in number – again emphasized in their arguments the impairment to uniformity, but primarily they emphasized the impairment to equality and the negative repercussions of the option for a personal inscription and noting family members on the tombstones. This is what one of the members had to say: “It is not possible that in addition to the fact that they are describing a private, a colonel, a major general, in addition to this fact they will go on to add all sorts of other descriptions and then everybody will follow his own inclination. I can sit and within three minutes bring forth 18 lines of descriptions that you can bestow upon a person and that one can choose, but this will prove ugly, this will be damaging, the matter can cause injury, because a bereaved parent will arrive, who is a simple person and consider himself aggrieved: Here with me it’s only written such and such, fell on day so and so, the son of a mother and father while all sorts of other things are written there. Why is he better than me? Why not me?”⁴⁰ Grave apprehension was expressed in the council that the fence would be breached if the council were to back down from its previous decision by any degree: Bereaved parents are sitting here, and each one of us has his own personal account with the past and with the disaster that has befallen him and if we have still expressed an opinion, it is not because we are ignoring the issue or because we believe that uniformity enjoys some sort of sanctity and it is therefore compulsory, but the truth of the matter is, how does the saying go, “a person who tramples down the fence will be bitten by a serpent.” If you were to remove a single stone from the fence, the entire fence collapses… any person can come, this one will want his girlfriend, and this will want something else instead, and besides who is to say this is the only thing? They also want to say something: “a humble and upright person, a goodhearted person, a decent person,” all sorts of things and provide descriptions and we commiserate with this, we knew our own son, we knew what sort of wonderful person he was. Why shouldn’t this be said? There is no end to such things. Once we reached a conclusion, we arrived at this conclusion.⁴¹ We are bursting a dam which will result in a situation, that we will not be able to withstand demands for an inscription of a political character, on the topic of pain, or let us assume one of a mystical nature or dealing with some nature of involvements, etc., etc…. families

39 Protocol of the Public Council meeting (above, footnote 33), pp. 11-39. 40 Ibid., p. 14, from the statement by N. Lifschitz. See also ibid., p. 19. 41 Ibid., p. 13, from the statement by N. Lifschitz.

Ratifying the Public Council’s Decisions and Criticism of Justice Barak 

 223

arrive at the cemeteries and see this, they will be sensitive to it… and this will mushroom into hundreds upon hundreds of requests, we will not be able to withstand this and this is not only a matter or sentiment, but it’s also a matter that they will be impossible to change the tombstones and begin everything afresh… the damage and the pain to the bereaved families after the dam bursts will be much greater than the damage, if it at all exists, to uniformity.⁴²

The council members were cognizant of the grave (from their perspective) precedent of Shula Melet⁴³ that took place at that year, and in their opinion the liberal wishy-washy approach of the defense minister was responsible: All those who are soft in spirit, faint of heart and they want to address matters in the liberal fashion, to be accommodating, let them see what happened with the Melet family… what memorial stone they proposed in the cemetery despite the fact that already we have twice here in the permanent committee recommended removing the stone, he doesn’t remove it. He deliberates, it’s hard to do this thing, but very grave things are written, against the IDF, against the commanders… yes, in the military cemetery… the mother [Shula Melet] erected a boulder on this place, a boulder that weighs a few tons and on its surface there are written very grave things: murdered and so on and so forth. It is hard to withstand this and it is not simple to say as well, that in order to avoid such a situation, where everyone comes with requests while his blood is pounding, requests for these things and others, that someone should have the heart to oppose and tell him: “cut it down, add a single line.” And he will say: “It is one line, but I will write this in Rashi script, and therefore it will take up less space.”⁴⁴

Given the two bills for a personal inscription, the apprehensions about the High Court of Justice decision in the additional deliberation and the fundamental position of the legal establishment – both in the Defense Ministry as well as in the State Attorney’s office, that believed that one should assent to the request by the Wechselbaum family – and as opposed to the previous discussion in the council, the council was now requested by the State Attorney General to give its opinion on the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty and the ruling by Justice Barak. In other words, the council was sounded out if it agreed to balance between the principles of uniformity and equality and the demands imposed by the aforementioned law and allow setting rules that could provide an opening to a family that wants to add an inscription of its own, if not on the tombstone, then on another place to be determined. An additional question on which the council’s response was solicited was whether the council was prepared without any connection 42 Ibid., p. 17, from the statement by Y. Neeman. 43 See p. 387 ff. 44 Protocol of the Public Council meeting (above, footnote 33), p. 14, from the statement by Council Chairman Y. Ben Amitai.

224 

 Towards a Revolution Incorporating Personal Expression in the Inscription

to the general issue to accommodate the Wechselbaum family and provide its request as a private incident. There is no doubt that this request derived primarily from the legal establishment’s desire to temporarily keep a distance from this hot potato on its doorstep. These requests, that were presented to the council by the legal advisor to the Rehabilitation Branch in the name of the Attorney General, encountered the disapproval of the council members – not because of the requests themselves, but because of the latent assumption that the council members had not paid attention either in their previous deliberation or in the current deliberation to the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty and all that it entailed. They believed that the reverse was true; and it would be appropriate to cite matters verbatim, for they expressed the view of the members regarding the essence of the Basic Law, moreover they emphasized that it was Barak’s position that inflicted damage to the law: I announce that I did not ignore the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty and the considerations that derive from it. I criticize those arguments for the following reason: When they speak of human dignity then they are speaking not only about the dignity of the deceased and the dignity of the surviving family members, but they are also speaking about the dignity of the other deceased and the dignity of other living family members. These too have their dignity… these changes… if we were to start with the minor things, everyone with his family and everybody with this matter [would approach] then perhaps we have provided not for the dignity of the deceased but for the dignity of the living, that if they so wished they could say: “Go see what’s written by us. We’re not like everybody else. We have something different written,” and pay no heed that it insults everybody else who comes visiting and observes this difference. The Honorable Aharon Barak, with all the honor that is due him, did not consider the dignity of others. He only saw, and I can accept this, that there should be dignity for the deceased… the dignity of the deceased is important to us. I deny the dignity of the living, because it’s not a matter of dignity, this is a matter of putting on airs, this is a matter of self-adornment, but he denies, Barak denies or ignores, the injury to the dignity of others and this dignity requires that people should defend it and we are defending it by our decision…⁴⁵ In my opinion every society creates for itself, establishes for itself norms that provide expression to what it conceives as human dignity. This is not absolute freedom and not a lack of absolute freedom. There are norms and limitations on both sides. I think that a tradition of 46 years, that prescribes uniformity and equality in the cemeteries, this is the norm that restricts and makes allowances, and any change in this norm will be injurious to human dignity, that at least some of the 17,800 will be injured. And therefore I would say, that the principle of equality and uniformity, the principle that we have been preserving for

45 Ibid., pp. 29-30, from the statement by N. Lifschitz.

Ratifying the Public Council’s Decisions and Criticism of Justice Barak 

 225

46 years should be incorporated as a clear and restrictive norm as part of human dignity and liberty…⁴⁶ If we are talking about sensitivity, and we are talking about the sensitivity of 17,800 graves… and as they have emphasized there’s a great deal of sensitivity, not only the sensitivity of a brother and sister. There is also the sensitivity of a wife and children, because there are many soldiers who have fallen that had a family and this is a relationship almost like the relationship of a father and mother and we at the same moment that we do not consider the sensitivity of 17,800 existing graves, we are entering a very big problem, a storm for a sizable public, because they too are sensitive and they also have emotions and therefore we stand on our previous decision…⁴⁷ Human dignity is a very broad concept and has many components. One can introduce many components into it and it still will not be accurately defined. But I introduce into it the element of sorrow, the sorrow of a person, because sorrow can develop into an affront to his dignity and just imagine for yourselves and he [Barak] paid no attention to it, that alongside the tombstone – let’s say of the Wechselbaum family, that according to Barak’s doctrine, there one should write the three names, an only child to a family was buried and should the family that comes to visit the grave see to the left of her son’s grave – every time it visits the grave, see that it lost an only child? This is the public domain; this is not the private domain. I believe that he ignored this point and he ignored also one other point. The question would’ve been more acute if the family lacked an alternative, and according to law the family does have an alternative. If the family will want to write what it wants to write it can, it doesn’t have to bury her son in the military cemetery. There’s no legal obligation to do so. If there was such an obligation by law then the statement by Justice Barak would be very relevant, the matter of human dignity… one cannot have it both ways, that is to say, he should both be buried in the military cemetery and it should be written what I want to be written, when it can and is liable to injure the right or sensitivities of another person and this the court must take into account.⁴⁸

The council members further contended that it was not relevant that the council should write rules for personal inscription and thus solve the problem, since first of all the most important thing was not to allow divergences in the inscription between family and family; secondly, these rules would be assailed in the future by other families, and the result would be perpetual conflict between the establishment and the families; third, it was not proper or desirable that the Division for Commemorating the Soldier or the council should become a censor of personal inscription “when the entire burial process is sufficiently painful and difficult and entails many other additional problems.” The council conceded that indeed the entire phenomenon of embellishments to the tombstones impairs uniformity, 46 Ibid., p. 33, from the statement by S. Dror. 47 Ibid., p. 26, from the statement by S. Dror. 48 Ibid., pp. 34-35, from the statement by R. Vardi.

226 

 Towards a Revolution Incorporating Personal Expression in the Inscription

and this lamentable phenomenon is performed at the behest of the families alone and without the knowledge of the Public Council for Commemorating the Soldier. Furthermore, “the Public Council recommended to the defense minister how to handle this. There were approaches to the relevant parents to remove the additions but to this very day due to the sensitivity the difficult decision to adopt the council’s recommendations and remove the additions was not taken.”⁴⁹ One should note that the council’s argument that an inscription conveying personal expression in the British cemetery on Mount Scopus was permitted only to British policemen but not for the soldiers – this argument is factually incorrect. As we have already noted above the inscription conveying a personal expression was allowed at the bottom of every military tombstone (in the part adjacent to the ground) in all British military cemeteries as well as in the military cemeteries of other countries of the British Commonwealth.

The Failure of the Government’s Senior Legal Echelons to Alter the Decisions of the Council and the Defense Minister The position of the council was therefore adamantly opposed to the position of senior government legal echelons commencing with the Attorney General, down through the director of the High Court of Justice department and concluding with the legal advisors to the defense establishment. We have become aware that the basic outlook of these parties disputed the position of the council; they believed that one should respond to the request of the Wechselbaum family. Furthermore, their legal analyses were identical to those of Barak and the minority opinion in the previous High Court of Justice session, and it seems that they themselves were most surprised by the ruling of the High Court of Justice that left Barak in the minority. From the standpoint of their “clients,” the defense minister and the council, they were very apprehensive over the expected decisions of the High Court of Justice in the soon approaching additional hearing. When it emerged that Justice Malz, who participated in the majority opinion in the first High Court of Justice session, was not included in the panel, whereas Barak was included on it, the prospects for failure grew appreciably.⁵⁰ The very decision by the High 49 DMA, folder 1604, file 1309, the Public Council decision regarding the addition of an inscription on the tombstones, 4.12.1994 – the source of the citations. 50 There can be no doubt that they accepted the description below of Barak, as described by Public Council Chairman Y. Ben Amitai: “I do not know who among you is aware of the fact, that as for Justice Aharon Barak, how does one put it – only the chair, the chair of the Supreme Court president is higher than him. Aside from this the weight that he carries among the team

The Failure of the Government’s Senior Legal Echelons to Alter the Decisions 

 227

Court of Justice to allow another hearing already hinted at what could be foreseen. Given these circumstances, the legal echelons viewed itself obligated to do whatever possible to prevent not only a debacle for the defense minister at the High Court of Justice but also the failure of the council itself in the sense of a lawyer who protects his client from himself as well. The legal elite was persuaded that the council did not manage to internalize the extent of the damage that the council, its status, powers and prerogatives would sustain in the event of defeat at the High Court of Justice. The tactical course of action adopted was a dual one: On the one hand they wanted to involve the defense minister in the heart of the matter with the expectation that he could prevail upon the council to change its position. On the other hand an attempt was made to persuade the minister to deviate from his policy, and in other words not to embrace the council’s position on this occasion but to assent to the family’s request. In this way the intervention of the High Court of Justice would become superfluous, no ruling would be issued as a binding precedent “whereas the delegated authority would enjoy sufficient time to delineate a proper path to arrive at uniformity and equality in the military cemeteries while at the same time allowing the families to give expression to their feelings in a framework that would be uniform and equal for everybody.” In other words, the legal echelons did not abandon the future implementation, in this form or another of its outlook that would allow the bereaved families an inscription conveying personal expression on the tombstone.⁵¹ In order to promote the operational tactic of the legal elites, in mid-March 1994 a discussion with a wide range of participants took place in the office of Prime Minister and Defense Minister Yitzhak Rabin. Attending the meeting were the deputy defense minister, Attorney General Michael Ben Yair, the State Attorney, the director of the Department of High Court of Justice petitions, the military Advocate General, the legal advisor to the Defense Ministry and three members of the Public Council. Ben Yair and his colleagues in the State Attorney’s office were aware of attempts – that had already failed – to persuade the council members to change their position, and therefore they hit on a new approach. The essence of their argument was that the institutional refusal to allow an inscription that would convey personal expression on the tombstone was responsible for the phenomeof Supreme Court Justices is most serious and he influences others with logical legal arguments and he generally imposes his opinion.” On this see YLA, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 12.27.1993, pp. 7-8. 51 DMA, folder 1604, file 1309, a position paper by N. Arad, the director of the High Court of Justice Department, 3.10.1994, with regards to the Wechselbaum petition.

228 

 Towards a Revolution Incorporating Personal Expression in the Inscription

non of the various embellishments that the families added to the inscription, pictures, drawings and various objects on the tombstones and their surroundings. The embellishments were the substitutes that the families found for an inscription conveying personal expression, but they marred uniformity more than anything else. Since there was an unequivocal decision by the defense minister not to remove the embellishments to avoid confrontation with the bereaved families but to secure this exclusively via persuasion,⁵² and since this path had failed, then the impairment to uniformity caused by the embellishments would persist and would even expand. The only way to cut back the dimensions of the phenomenon would be to allow the families the inscription conveying personal expression. “And if the defense establishment were to establish for itself a system of norms on what is permissible and what was not permissible to write in this personal statement, and they were to go out to the parents and tell them: ‘Look here, you now have a respectable place and there is room for a personal statement,’ then most definitely with regards to the future there will be a moral right to come to the bereaved parents… and say: ‘We are reshaping our cemeteries with a new design, in this respect we will all lend a hand… [and] they will tell him [the person who seeks an inscription conveying personal expression, and who had previously installed an embellishment]: ‘please remove this other thing.’ This will turn into a quasi norm; those who do it on an irregular basis will emerge looking more deviant. This may actually prove useful and promote matters when we take the lead rather than being led.”⁵³ Furthermore, in the British military cemeteries in Israel and in the military cemeteries in the United States an option for inserting a personal inscription at the bottom of the tombstones was available, and indeed there embellishments are non-existent and the uniform look of the tombstone in the cemeteries is striking. This look of uniformity in terms of the size of the tombstones, the size of the letters, the engraving of the letters, their prominence and the entire gamut of the external shape should be preserved in Israel’s military cemeteries as well. The inscription that conveyed personal expression would not hamper uniformity but “would communicate to the family itself. Another visitor that will come to pay a call… generally will go to that grave, to that tombstone that he is coming to visit and he will not pay attention precisely to what is written on

52 See below, Chapter 11. 53 DMA, folder 44823, file 222, protocol of the deliberation on the issue of the Wechselbaum High Court of Justice case with the participation of Prime Minister and Defense Minister Y. Rabin, State Attorney General M. Ben Yair, senior legal echelons of the Justice Ministry and the Defense Ministry and other participants on 3.11.1994. The citations were taken from pp. 6-7, from the statement by Director of the High Court of Justice Department N. Arad.

The Failure of the Government’s Senior Legal Echelons to Alter the Decisions 

 229

this pillow or another pillow. He will direct his heart and his gaze to the outward appearance where uniformity is currently being marred.”⁵⁴ Nevertheless the lawyers conceded that they could not at all guarantee that by providing options for conveying a personal expression this would perforce lead to a cutback of the embellishment phenomenon, and definitely they could not vouch that the phenomenon would be liquidated. This was the essential weakness of the argument, and it is clear that representatives of the council emphasized this at the start of their counter arguments: “What have these wise men availed with their ordinance? We will allow them to write on the pillow, and will whitewash every applicant and we still won’t restrict the appearance that is sometimes embarrassing, truly embarrassing in the cemeteries.”⁵⁵ Throughout that entire encounter the lack of trust displayed by council representatives towards the upper echelons of the government’s legal advisors since the Ginosar High Court of Justice case and especially regarding the activity of the legal advisors during the preparation for the first High Court of Justice case involving the Wechselbaum family,⁵⁶ to the decision by Justice Levin to allow an additional discussion in the High Court of Justice – a decision that in the opinion of the council was rendered possible only because of the support evinced by the State Attorney’s office for it – hovered in the air. However, the presence of the defense minister, the exclusive authority who could accept or reject the council’s decisions that were adapted unanimously both on the specific request by the Wechselbaum family as well as the fundamental issue of the personal inscription – issues that were cardinally important to the council – obligated its representatives to concentrate on rational fundamental arguments in explaining the council’s position rather than cast accusations at the State Attorneys. They reiterated the arguments that had already been voiced at other frameworks: First, there is a partnership between the state (and the family) regarding a dead soldier who is buried in a military cemetery,⁵⁷ and this awards the state the moral right to set rules in the military cemeteries; secondly, one cannot ignore apprehension surrounding the fate of the equality and uniformity principle; third, one can anticipate injury to all the dead buried in the vicinity of a tombstone carrying a personal written expression, for “if on the tombstone they write ‘the brother of Jackie and the cousin of so and so,’ next to it is interred a soldier who was an only child to a family that emerged from the Holocaust, who founded a family here and it was he their only child who fell. And therefore a visit to a military cemetery 54 Ibid. The citation is from p. 5, from the statement by State Attorney General M. Ben Yair. 55 Ibid. The citation is from p. 8, from the statement by Public Council Chairman Y. Ben Amitai. 56 See above, p. 206 ff. 57 See above, footnote 53. The citation is from pp. 10-11, from the statement by D. Giladi.

230 

 Towards a Revolution Incorporating Personal Expression in the Inscription

would be tantamount to our taking a sword and thrusting it deep into that very same mother who after all she had experienced in her lifetime now she sees it, here there is a large family here there is not, she is miserable and she has to see this and suffer an entire lifetime”;⁵⁸ fourth, Justice Barak and the State Attorney ignored the fact that the principle of equality among all the slain who gave their life in defense of the country is the principle that guarantees the dignity of the deceased (that derives from human dignity), and thus the tombstone of a general is identical to the tombstone of a private and on the tombstones no inscription is added that can injure in any shape whatsoever other fallen; fifth, “the dignity of the [military] cemetery is not my or your personal dignity, but the dignity of the entire nation. The nation in its entirety pays and it is represented in the cemetery, and one cannot today, 46 years after the establishment of the state, come and say: now let’s start afresh… we can’t overcome the sense of urgency that reverberates in our hearts, lest we should injure those who are already there”;⁵⁹ sixth, every family interested in a personal inscription has the legal option of burying its relative in a civilian cemetery.⁶⁰ Prime Minister and Defense Minister Yitzhak Rabin listened to the positions of both sides attentively, and did not hesitate to adopt a decision on the spot. Faithful to his fundamental and long standing approach to adopt the Public Council’s decisions in everything concerning the military cemeteries on the strength of its moral authority, he made it clear: I, to this very day in my post as defense minister, in everything that concerns the rules and laws governing the commemoration of soldiers in military cemeteries, I have viewed the Public Council for Commemorating the Soldier as a body that has moral force, over and beyond the consideration that this council represents those who have paid the dearest price, the dearest price of military service. They have lost their beloved. I have never acted in contravention of a recommendation by the Council for Commemorating the Soldier. In order to even think of this, one would have required an extraordinarily deviant case where I have to overcome the moral force that this council possesses, that far outweighs all the other considerations. Therefore I continue to adhere to the policy as was in the case of the previous High Court of Justice where I embraced the recommendation of the Council for Commemorating the Soldier. What if the court should decide otherwise? Let it decide. I am not the court, I am the defense minister. And my first obligation is to those who represent that broad public that lost its beloved. Therefore I am sorry, my dear Attorney General, I accept the recommendation of the Council for Commemorating the Soldier.⁶¹ 58 Ibid. 59 See above, footnote 53. The citation is from p. 13, from the statement by A. Lifschitz. 60 See above, footnote 53. 61 See above, footnote 53. The citation is from pp. 14-15, from the statement by Prime Minister and Defense Minister Y. Rabin. After a few weeks the chairman of the Public Council told council members that it was the “good fortune” of the council that the state attorney general insisted

The Positions of the Parties 

 231

Ben Yair was left with no other recourse but to adjourn this tension laden meeting with the declaration that the State Attorney’s office will defend the position of the Prime Minister and the council in court.⁶² Once again the senior echelons in the State Attorney’s office and the legal advisors of the Defense Ministry set forth to defend the council and the defense minister when their approach on such a tension laden issue, as well as their legal judgment, was very close if not identical to that of the opposing side.⁶³

The Positions of the Parties at the Opening of the Second Wechselbaum High Court of Justice Case: A Rehash of Familiar Positions In the beginning of May 1994, after the grave of Eran had been left bereft of a pillow for a year and a half and in its stead the family had placed a large portrait of Eran,⁶⁴ the High Court of Justice again reconvened with an expanded panel of justices, Aharon Barak, Shlomo Levin, Eliezer Goldberg (Goldberg as may be remembered supported the majority opinion in the previous High Court of Justice case), Eliyahu Matza and Dalia Dorner. The petition, like the request for an additional hearing, was submitted this time by attorney Dr. Yaakov Neeman and it was studded with many references, legal precedents and relevant literature – including references to the existing customs in military cemeteries throughout the world and the attitude of Jewish law to the dignity of the deceased and more. Neeman’s arguments were based primarily on the position and explanations of Justice Barak in the first Wechselbaum High Court of Justice case that as may be recalled accorded centrality to the repercussions of the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty on the option of a personal inscription. Neeman argued that the dignity of the deceased and the dignity of the mourners were a byproduct of the fundamental rights of human dignity. And this principle took precedence above an ordinary law, as dictated by its being a basic Law. All these obligated extendthat the personal inscription should be engraved on the pillow, for if the state attorney general had proposed that the personal inscription should be placed someplace else on the tombstone, it is possible that Rabin would have agreed to it and managed to persuade the council. On this see DFCSA, protocol of the Permanent Committee of the Public Council meeting, 4.4.1994, p. 13. 62 See above, footnote 53, p. 15. 63 See above, footnote 53. See also DMA, folder 1604, file 1309, decision by the Public Council regarding the addition of an inscription on the tombstones, 4.12.1994, signed by Council Chairman Y. Ben Amitai. 64 A. Lurie, “A Small Grand Piano on the Grave and a Few Additional Words of Farewell,” Ha’aretz, 9.14.1994.

232 

 Towards a Revolution Incorporating Personal Expression in the Inscription

ing permission to the relatives to express their feelings via a personal inscription on the tomb of the fallen. This inscription struck a plausible balance between the principle of uniformity – that by law should be implemented in the cemeteries – and the principle of the dignity of the deceased and the dignity of the mourners. Furthermore, the principle of uniformity was not preserved in practice in the cemeteries, because families were providing a personal expression to their sentiments by means of various embellishments to the grave and alongside it. These embellishments demonstrated how the principle of total uniformity had become a decree that the public could not live with. And these furnished “a living testimony that the need for a personal expression is a general need. A culture of grief matured over the years in tandem with enhanced importance for the values of personal rights in society and in the law in general, the real necessity of bereaved parents to accelerate the trend towards personal commemoration in the military cemeteries is recognized… and the law must adjust itself to living reality. It must consider the prevalent needs and values in Israeli society in general and those that characterize the family of bereavement in particular.”⁶⁵ Neeman did not seek to ignore the principle of uniformity – the reverse is true. He wanted to preserve it but nonetheless to allow a personal inscription. For that reason he coined the term “the test of substantial uniformity.” This test is the written product derived from balancing the principle of absolute uniformity with the principle of human dignity by means of extending primacy to the principle of uniformity while simultaneously providing the option for expressing the principle of human dignity in a manner that allowed space for personal elements, as long as these do not substantially impair the principle of uniformity. He claimed that this possibility offers room for personal commemoration alongside the commemoration of the collective. “It permits fusing the tragedy of individual death into the joint national issue,” as was the practice in England, where uniformity in a military cemetery was preserved but families retained the possibility of expressing their grief via inscribing a number of words on the tombstone.⁶⁶ Neeman added that the test of “substantial uniformity” was the ruling in the Ginosar High Court of Justice case, where the court ruled that alongside preserving the principle of uniformity in the inscription one should consider the sentiments of the relatives. In the 1950 Knesset deliberations regarding the Law of Military Cemeteries the minister of justice when he presented the law did not speak about total uniformity but of a “degree of uniformity,” and in his answer to Zisling who emphasized the need to provide personal expression, “the minister of justice did not flatly 65 See SCA (above, footnote 33), the main arguments by the petitioners, 2.23.1994. The citations are from p. 5, paragraph 4.7 in the petition statement. See also ibid., p. 11. 66 Ibid., p. 7, paragraph 5.3.3., Neeman cited G. Mosse.

The Positions of the Parties 

 233

reject these words, but added the reservation that ‘uniformity must be the most prominent and decisive form.’” Nili Arad in 1992 and Justice Barak in his minority opinion in the first High Court of Justice case said much the same. Neeman defined as “self-evident” the argument that providing the option for personal expression did not insult the dignity of other slain soldiers buried in the military cemetery and their family members. This was a weighty argument that was extensively raised in the discussions of the Public Council for Commemorating the Soldier. It is difficult to say, though, that Neeman managed to demonstrate that these words were self-evident. All that Neeman managed to argue by pointing to pictures from the British military cemeteries (where the option of inscribing a personal expression already existed) was that “the observer from afar, including another bereaved parent who came to visit the grave of his son, all he sees is uniformity, and therefore the external uniqueness of the military cemetery, that distinguishes it from other cemeteries and accords proper dignity to those interred there, is preserved. Nevertheless, the families coming to the grave of their loved ones encounter there in communing with their loved ones a personal expression for their grief. The grave of every slain soldier is equal, and at the same time, his uniqueness and the dignity of his person is preserved… what I find striking in these pictures is the appearance of the tombstones, a uniformity that creates the very same atmosphere of exaltation and holiness, preserving the dignity of the dead and the unity of purpose that the principle of uniformity is intended to serve, and at the same time, a person drawing up close to the tombstones will discover, but only from an in depth scrutiny of them, that within the uniform framework, the family of the dead soldier was permitted to commemorate its grief in a personal fashion.” Nonetheless it seems that Neeman found it difficult (just as did Justice Barak, Nili Arad and the state attorney general) to provide a genuine response to the argument of impairment to the dignity of the dead and the dignity of their families that would be incurred by the inequality created in granting permission for personal inscription, and did not provide a response to the bursting of the dam that would be caused as a result of such permission, as the Public Council had observed extensively in the past.⁶⁷ Neeman also did not find it necessary to report in the petition on the policy of the British authorities in the event of an attempt to damage the uniform framework of the grave plots, for example by adding items or “creating facts on the ground” including private gardening around the tombstones, as many bereaved families had done in cemeteries in Israel around the grave of their sons when the delegated authorities reconciled themselves retroactively to the non-uniform reality that had been created. In other words, it seems that Britain could not serve as an example because of the 67 Ibid., pp. 1-14, the citation is from pp. 10-11, paragraph 6.2.2.

234 

 Towards a Revolution Incorporating Personal Expression in the Inscription

tangible differences between the two countries and everything concerning the private upkeep of the tomb (save for the inscription) and its surroundings. The State Attorney’s office based its response on the deliberations and decisions of the Public Council on the matter, arguing that we were dealing with decisions that had been adopted unanimously by the Public Council whose entire membership was composed of bereaved parents. The State Attorney’s office emphasized the injury to other families, and in any case the injury to the principle of equality and uniformity if the request of the Wechselbaum family were to receive a positive response. It is clear therefore that the State Attorney’s office found it necessary to emphasize extensively the words of Justices Matza and Goldberg from the first High Court of Justice case. For that reason the arguments of the defendants reiterated the impairment to equality which in itself constituted impairment to the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty. In any case they believed that an attempt to balance the principles of equality and uniformity with the principle of human dignity – both in the case of the Wechselbaum family and in the case of families of the other fallen and the fallen themselves – did not allow a positive response to the request by the family.⁶⁸ In the affidavit written by the chairman of the Public Council which was appended to the response by the State Attorney’s office to the petition, the author conceded that indeed as the petition contended, “in practice there are many and sundry embellishments in the military cemeteries in the vicinity of the graves and sometimes even on the tombstones themselves that have been added without permission, despite their impairment to uniformity and the quality.” He further added and conceded that the council had recommended to the families to remove these embellishments, but these had refused to do so, and “in practice one cannot take action against this phenomenon as in almost every case these embellishments remained in place.” But it is precisely this reality that demonstrates in his opinion more than anything else why the council remains adamant in its opposition to the request by the Wechselbaum family, for “in similar fashion, we estimate that once the obstacle has been breached and a personal addition to the inscription on the tombstone pillow will be permitted, the council will not be able to overcome other deviations that would not conform to the rules, and impermissible expressions will not be removed from the pillows of the tombstones, even if this would cause injury to private or public sentiments. From this one can conclude that amending the rule that does not permit one to add an inscription to the tombstone will bring about a wholesale impairment to uniformity and equality

68 See SCA (above, footnote 33), the main arguments by the respondents, 5.3.1995, pp. 1-8. The citations are from pp. 5-7.

The Initiatives Taken by the Senior Government Legal Echelons 

 235

and this will lead to an accumulation of bitterness and anguish against limiting freedom of expression, even if that limitation will be fixed in binding rules.”⁶⁹

The Initiatives Taken by the Senior Government Legal Echelons to Allow Personal Inscription But Outside the Pillow At the time that the High Court of Justice panel convened in May 1994, after they were already familiar from the written material with the positions of the parties, the entire panel proposed to the litigants to reassemble the Public Council for renewed discussion on the issue of the petition. But the High Court of Justice did not content itself with doing this. The court requested that during those deliberations the council consider providing “the option of personal expression on the tombstone (for example, in the front and undressed part of the pillow) or in its vicinity, according to uniform standards that would be set” and “these standards would apply both for the future as well as back towards the past.” This conclusion by the High Court of Justice that “with the setting of uniform standards they would be upheld by law for the past as well” was very important.⁷⁰ Subsequently the chairman of the Public Council would contend before council members that his interpretations of this passage in the High Court of Justice proposal was that if the council were to endorse the principle of personal inscription and were to define the standards for personal inscription this “would allow us in a legal, institutionalized and sanctioned fashion to remove and do away with any inscription or symbol that today appears on the graves.”⁷¹ The justices in the High Court of Justice emphasized that their recommendation should not be interpreted as taking a stance with regards to the petition itself,⁷² but it was clear to the attorneys who represented the state in the High Court of Justice that in fact the High Court of Justice had already stated its position. This meant, “if the matter will again come to court it appears that there will be no dissent between the justices and the verdict will be in the spirit of Justice Barak’s minority opinion.” The attorneys also could not ignore the literature that Attorney Neeman had presented to them and before the court regarding the option of a personal inscription that existed in Britain and the United States. The legal advisors in the Defense Ministry examined the material from the United 69 See SCA (above, footnote 33), Response Affidavit by the Public Council on 5.2.1994, signed by the council chairman, pp. 1-8. The citations are from p. 4, paragraph 12D. 70 SCA (above, footnote 33), the court’s decision on 5.6.1994. 71 SCA (above, footnote 33), protocol of the Public Council meeting, 5.29.1994, p. 2. 72 See above, footnote 70.

236 

 Towards a Revolution Incorporating Personal Expression in the Inscription

States for themselves, “and indeed there as well there is an option for the family that so desires to append a personal inscription as an addition. The number of families who utilize this option is very small, but the option exists and what is intended are expressions in the realm of affectionate expressions, expressions of endearment, that the family feels ought to be written. This is done in special plots, not in every cemetery but at Arlington, I emphasize, and even there at a select location.”⁷³ The outlook and the legal position of the senior legal establishment was as may be recalled antagonistic from the outset to the position of the council and the defense minister,⁷⁴ and there can be no doubt that it did its duty in representing the defense establishment under duress and with a total lack of desire. This accounts for the feverish discussions that took place between the senior echelons of the State Attorney’s office, legal advisors of the defense establishment, the chairman of the Public Council and perhaps other members of the council – deliberations that took place from the moment that the High Court of Justice made its recommendation until the date that the council convened at the end of May 1994. The conclusion that arose from these deliberations was unequivocal – to pick up the gauntlet that the High Court of Justice had tossed to the Public Council and especially when the High Court of Justice hinted that it would be satisfied even if the personal inscription would not be entered on the pillow, in other words the impairment to uniformity would be minimized even further: “We believe… it necessary to find a way to give a family that so desires and allow the addition of a personal expression – not on the pillow but on another place on the tomb, two lines of personal expression.”⁷⁵

73 SCA, Additional High Court of Justice Deliberations file 3299/93 (High Court of Justice 5688/93), protocol of the Public Council meeting, 5.29.1994, with the attorney for the Wechselbaum family Y. Neeman participating. The citations are from the statement of N. Pearlman, a senior deputy to the legal advisor of the defense establishment, pp. 7-9. 74 SCA, Additional High Court of Justice Deliberations file 3299/93 (High Court of Justice 5688/93), Knesset Protocols, 10.12.1994, p. 172, statement by Rubinstein in a newspaper interview that was cited by Knesset Member A. Poraz: “The comparison between the cemeteries of 1948 and what exists today reflects the face of society. Then we were a society with national collectivism, that found expression in symbols, and today we are a more individualistic society. Human sentiment has not altered between sons and parents from 1948 to this day. The only thing that has changed is society.” Subsequently Rubinstein repeated this in his article in Tel Aviv University Law Review. On this see Rubinstein (1997), p. 46: “It is not the human sentiment of parental love for the children that has changed: it is the face of society that has changed.” 75 See above, footnote 73, a citation from the words of N. Pearlman, p. 9. This proposal was as may be recalled in the spirit of the proposal made by Justice Barak in the original Wechselbaum High Court of Justice case.

The Initiatives Taken by the Senior Government Legal Echelons 

 237

With all these arguments the senior legal echelons managed to persuade the chairman of the Public Council that its position was sound,⁷⁶ and he saw a huge advantage in the proposal made by the court that “by setting uniform rules they would be legally enforced retroactively as well,” for it would now finally prove possible to remove the embellishments.⁷⁷ Likewise it would finally be possible to remove the tombstone that Shula Melet had installed.⁷⁸ The chairman of the council was also given to understand that Attorney Neeman would not oppose having the addition requested by the Wechselbaum family engraved on some other place rather than on the pillow.⁷⁹ As a matter of fact Neeman had even explicitly declared to the justices “that he did not insist that the personal inscription should be precisely on the pillow.”⁸⁰ Therefore with the legal advisor of the Defense Ministry, the chairman of the Public Council and the head of the Division for Commemorating the Soldier acting in concert, the division prepared the draft proposal of uniform rules for adding an inscription conveying personal expression. The chairman of the council sought to submit the draft for discussion before the council when it convened as per the decision of the High Court of Justice at the end of May in the hope that the council would ratify it.⁸¹ What follows is the text of the proposal: 1.

2.

A family that wants a personal inscription will be entitled to request the addition of an inscription conveying personal expression with the authorization of the Division for Commemorating the Soldier. The addition of the inscription shall be done on the front part [but not on the pillow] of the tombstone, it will not exceed two lines and will contain up to 48 letters, according to the appendix enclosed. [We were dealing with a marble plate whose dimensions were 76 cm x 16 cm, that would be placed at the edge of the tombstone, and on it the inscription conveying personal expression would be engraved.] Reservations: The added inscription will not include words injurious to the values of the State of Israel, the security of the state, the dignity of others and good taste. The addition to the inscription will not incorporate details regarding the circumstances of death and the military post of the deceased beyond what was noted on top of the pillow. Symbols, pictures and illustrations are not permitted. No other additions to the

76 From the report of Council Chairman Y. Ben Amitai to the council in the beginning of April regarding the meeting with Rabin one may infer clearly that if the personal inscription would not be on the pillow, he would not necessarily oppose it. On this see DFCSA, protocol of the Permanent Committee of the Public Council meeting, 4.4.1994, p. 13, from the statement by Y. Ben Amitai. 77 See above, footnote 71. The citation is from the court’s decision (above, footnote 70). 78 See above, footnote 73, p. 11, from the statement by Council Chairman Y. Ben Amitai. 79 Ibid., p. 11. 80 See SCA (above, footnote 33), the court’s decision on 3.27.1995, the citation is from the statement by Justice D. Levin in paragraph 4. 81 See above, footnote 73, p. 10, the statement by Council Chairman Y. Ben Amitai.

238 

3. 4.

 Towards a Revolution Incorporating Personal Expression in the Inscription

inscription will be allowed. The Division for Commemorating the Soldier is entitled to remove additions, items and inscriptions that were performed without its authorization, and may do so without receiving permission from the family. The addition to the inscription would be performed upon the full agreement of all family members (parents and the widow) and if these are not alive, the closest relative. The additional inscription would be performed by the Division for Commemorating the Soldier within three months from the application by the family.⁸²

The placement of the marble plate at the edge of the tombstone as stated in paragraph 1 – at a maximal distance from the pillow – was intended to balance between the existence of the tomb in its present format without harming it on the one hand, and the desire to allow a personal inscription on the other hand. The decision that was adopted left the tombstone in its original format and added the personal inscription at the edge of the tombstone.⁸³

Wide Fissures in the Council’s Unity Attorney Yaakov Neeman at his request was invited to the discussion that took place in the council at the end of the month of May. He requested that the council adopt the existing principle of personal inscription in Britain and in that process enunciate clear and uniform principles and standards both for the personal inscription as well as for the uniform inscription. He had himself formulated a proposal for norms regarding the personal inscription (that would be appropriate for the future and in retrospect and would be legally enforced retroactively),⁸⁴ that was very similar to the proposal formulated by the Division for Commemorating the Soldier.⁸⁵ In this fashion he believed that there will be no need on the part of the family to express their personal sentiments by means of such embellishments on the tombstones and in their vicinity. Such embellishments were totally unacceptable to the council but it was restrained or refrained from removing them. Neeman alluded to the tombstone that the Melet family had erected and pointed to the absurd situation, where despite the ruling of the High Court 82 See SCA (above, footnote 33), a draft proposal for uniform rules for the addition of an inscription conveying personal expression. 83 Letter from E. Rubinstein to the author, 1.10.2004. 84 See above, footnote 73, pp. 2-6. 85 It is clear that Neeman’s proposal and the division’s proposal both drew their inspiration from the High Court of Justice’s proposal at the first session of the additional deliberation – a proposal that was originally raised by Barak in his minority opinion in the first Wechselbaum High Court of Justice case. And see above, p. 213 ff.

Wide Fissures in the Council’s Unity 

 239

of Justice regarding the petition of the Ben Zeev family,⁸⁶ “it is explicitly written… on a standard tombstone of the Division for Commemorating the Soldier… died as a member of the armored corps in the blocking battle in the Sinai during the Yom Kippur War. The fact was that despite the verdict, this inscription had survived to this very day because the family wanted to express something.”⁸⁷ In response to the previous council deliberations where apprehension was voiced about a breakdown of the barriers if a personal inscription were permitted (see above) Neeman emphasized that “one does not impose a decree on the public that the public cannot abide by. The hermetic closure that did not allow any personal expression whatsoever was perhaps also responsible of the breakdown of the barrier that this entire honorable council expresses its concern for. Perhaps if clear norms were established, that would offer a modicum of expression to the bereaved families, to their personal grief, without in any way harming the fundamental principles of the State of Israel, and perhaps this is what will prevent the breakdown as well.”⁸⁸ Upon the conclusion of Neeman’s statement the chairman sought to circulate among the members the draft proposal “for uniform rules regarding the addition of an inscription of personal expression” that was formulated with his consent at the Defense Ministry and to hold the discussion that the council was requested to stage at the directive of the court, after the members had perused the proposal. However, the request by the chairman encountered opposition by members who demanded holding a fundamental discussion on the subject for which they had been convened at the directive of the court before any prepared proposal was submitted to them. According to the council’s rules the chairman had to agree to such a demand. Thus the council reverted to discussing at that meeting the question of the very possibility of changing the existing inscription models. In an unprecedented discussion from the standpoint of the pervasive tension and the asperity of the expressions that were uttered, anger was conveyed not only towards Neeman but towards the government legal apparatus as well. Council members admitted that over the last decades neither uniformity, nor most definitely equality prevailed in the military cemeteries, and they expressed grave frustration over their inability to enforce the rules of uniformity. They longed for a situation where all the plots in the cemeteries would look like the plots of those who had fallen in the War of Independence. Regarding the issue that constituted the focus of the discussion, they found it difficult to draw a distinction between the fundamental issue – giving permission to personal inscription – and 86 See above, p. 164 ff. 87 Ibid., p. 5, from the statement by Y. Neeman. 88 Ibid., p. 4, from the statement by Y. Neeman.

240 

 Towards a Revolution Incorporating Personal Expression in the Inscription

the matter of the Wechselbaum family, whom the council deeply resented for pushing the council into this corner. In any event no shift occurred in the position espoused by the majority of the members. For similar reasons to those detailed above and that were voiced in previous meetings, they rejected any option for personal inscription and blamed the Wechselbaum family for a desire to stand out and nothing more than that.⁸⁹ Below verbatim are a number of statements, that reflect the intensity of opposition to any change: I regret the fact that the State Attorney’s office… was influenced and favors surrender… It is impossible to appear for an additional discussion before five justices without receiving permission. When permission was requested from Justice Dov Levin, Ms. Nili Arad arose and said that it is true that the verdict of the majority is justified, but if you want the petition to go forward issue an order. That means, she hinted to him that he should give one. If she had not done so we would not be sitting here today, there would not have been an additional hearing and the majority verdict would have been binding… among the 17,800 [fallen] there are those whose parents and relatives are already not among the living. Who is going to come forward and argue their discrimination? Who is going to ask to make changes? Who knows what should be added in all these places?... One of Neeman’s arguments in the additional hearing was that currently the situation is unclear. The opposite is the case. Today the situation is clear. There are deviations – true. We were not okay in not removing the deviations. But that doesn’t mean that the situation is unclear. But, my dear sirs, let the wisest man in the world, not me, sit and prepare the rules in the clearest possible manner… do you have any doubt that someone will arrive and start puncturing holes, here this and there that… I know certain cases where they would have wanted something totally different. There is no more dangerous thing than giving in, how do they put it, give the devil half a finger and he will take the entire hand. There’s nothing more dangerous than giving in on any formulation. That is what they want, a formulation that they can make a business out of. Don’t think I have a jaundiced view of attorneys… but heaven forbid that we should turn this matter into a gold mine for the attorneys… that they should offer their services for work and profits… there is no problem of real pain. Here we have a problem with a desire to stick out that has received the full force of expression whatever the case may be…⁹⁰ A personal expression is always measured from the perspective of the person himself, with the contents, with the baggage, with the cultural patterns that he arrives with. The moment we allow one person personal expression as he deems fit we will create a precedent for other people who are perhaps antagonistic to norms upon which this entire matter is predicated. 89 See above, footnote 73, pp. 10-37. See further about the aspiration to see the military cemeteries restored to their appearance during the early days of the state, ibid., protocol of the Public Council meeting, 7.5.1994, the statement by council member M. Cohen-Avidov: “Go and see how the cemetery of 1948 and those buried in 1948 appears today, what dignity and what grandeur, and how do the cemeteries here appear recently, some botanical garden, and there we have a dignified military cemetery replete with grandeur and honor.” 90 See above, footnote 73, pp. 20-23, from the statement by G. K.

Wide Fissures in the Council’s Unity 

 241

If we were to create a precedent for a single time we will create deviations, in the end we will see that this military cemetery is already no longer a military cemetery, it is like a civilian cemetery, and we see what goes on there…⁹¹ There is something that is much deeper than uniformity… equality. There has to be equality of the victim and any change will destroy the equality of the victim for us. What exists today is that a private is buried alongside the general and the general alongside a private and everybody is equal… when you go to war a difference exists between a general and the private but when they fall… then equality exists. My dear sirs, I am moved by this show that took place here and by the previous spectacles. My dear sirs, this is terror. They take an attorney; they pay him tens of thousands [for the historical record let it be said that Neeman represented the Wechselbaum family, and later on the Bargur family, on a pro bono basis] sure – but what about somebody who doesn’t have the money? This is terror and the State Attorney’s office was also infected a bit by the terror. I remember… that session when Nili Arad arose… and proposed this and I think that my words exerted a good deal of influence on the justices, so they did not adopt the opinion of Nili Arad. Later on she shook my hand. Who was she to shake hands when she said here let us raise our hands in surrender?... should we, council members, always be dependent on some form of terror, excuse my expression, that whoever will be stronger will bring children, will bring attorneys and all these things while the State Attorney’s office always tends to compromise because it fears a debacle. We don’t… I am speaking about the psychological equality of the families, and the fact that we can harm thousands of families by the fact that we’re introducing all sorts of different things here… so if there is a deviant case we have to continue and deviate even further and further?... In my opinion we have to inform the prime minister and the defense minister, that in the future we won’t accept any changes. He will force us? Let them force us please, he will be stewing in this business and the council must announce explicitly that the council won’t discuss these matters. Whoever decides on these changes let them break his head later on with the hundreds of thousands of requests for all sorts of changes. It is clear, if the council is going to turn into such a forum then in my opinion we have nothing to do on such a council, let them find vacillating attorneys, who will do this thing…⁹² The only thing that Neeman persuaded me is let us uproot all those things that these families or others trespassed upon. Let’s explain to them, that they can transfer to a civilian cemetery and write what they permit them. Even there they don’t allow them to write everything. Only with difficulty did they allow writing a secular date in the civilian cemeteries. Here they want to make a free-for-all. I propose not discussing this matter anymore. Let’s reiterate what we said and not seek compromises.⁹³

The council members did not believe that it was compulsory to adopt the American or British model that Neeman spoke about at length – especially as they contended that the information in their possession demonstrated that Neeman’s 91 Ibid., pp. 12-13, from the statement by B. D. 92 Ibid., pp. 13-16, from the statement by N. T. 93 Ibid., p. 17, from the statement by N. E.

242 

 Towards a Revolution Incorporating Personal Expression in the Inscription

comments about these models were not accurate. They emphasized as follows: “In most cemeteries of the British Army, and unfortunately I visit there, no such thing exists…”⁹⁴ “I don’t think that what is practiced abroad in such cemeteries or others has to be accepted practice in the State of Israel as well. Every people has its nature and its tradition. We differ in many things and I don’t think that this has to obligate us, I was in Arlington and I didn’t see this lack of uniformity which they mentioned here. But from the material I discovered that this takes place in special plots. Then maybe we can come and say, whoever wants to make a deviation let it take place in a special plot and then I’m convinced that he will back down from requesting an exceptional case. He won’t desire to be in a separate bloc but to fall in line so the fallen son would get the honor he deserves and not on the basis of a deviation.”⁹⁵ Let us note that at this stage of matters, the scientific truth, in other words the actual situation in the British cemeteries and Arlington – is less important. What is more important is the criticism within the council on the data presented by Neeman, that definitely could have influenced the position of council members. As opposed to previous deliberations in the council where a unanimous decision against a personal inscription was adopted, in the present deliberation four council members supported a personal inscription. Two of them conditioned their agreement on the proviso that the personal inscription would not be inscribed on the pillow but in accordance with the fundamental decision of the court and the detailed proposals formulated by the Division for Commemorating the Soldier. These two members were the chairman, who as mentioned was persuaded by the government legal apparatus to modify his position. He dwelled upon the implicit advantages to the proposal as we detailed above, and was seconded by another member. The latter contended that one could not totally ignore the sentiments of the families and their desire to express them. This he believed was especially true since the concept of “equality” was nebulous, unrealistic. “There is no equality. Whoever believes equality exists is mistaken. Nature has not created equality and in life equality does not exist.”⁹⁶ Another member vigorously took exception to this “ferocious attack on the bereaved family… (nobody entrusted us with the determination who hurts more and who hurts less and interpreting his position whether he wants to stand out or he simply wants to feel the pain),” and he also said that one should accommodate the family and not come out against it – especially as “there is no uniformity and there won’t be uniformity and even today, whoever visits the cemeteries knows that there is no uniformity.” He also did not 94 Ibid., p. 16, from the statement by N. E. 95 Ibid., pp. 18-19, from the statement by L. G. 96 Ibid., p. 19, from the statement by S. Dror.

Wide Fissures in the Council’s Unity 

 243

shrink from accusing the council members that they themselves had impaired uniformity by placing various objects on the tombs of their children and in their vicinity. However as opposed to his two other fellows he explained that if in any case they wanted to preserve a degree of uniformity, the personal inscription must be on the pillow and not on the tomb and its surroundings: “only on the pillow, for if not on the pillow there definitely will not be uniformity. Already today… we stationed all sorts of pillars next to the graves… so I say on the pillow and remove the rest of the tanks, the armor, the metal helmets and types of planes, let’s remove them.”⁹⁷ It was further proposed to add the personal inscription on the front profile of the pillow.⁹⁸ Due to a lack of time the joint proposal of the Division for Commemorating the Soldier and the chairman of the council was not submitted for discussion.⁹⁹ The chairman asked the members to consider the proposal that was to be sent to their home. Some of the members displayed a pronounced lack of confidence towards the chairman – a lack of confidence that in my opinion was unjustified – and suspected that he would conceal the council’s position expressed on that day’s session from the Defense Minister.¹⁰⁰ Three days later, on June 1, 1994, the results of the survey were received. The results once again displayed the opposition of most council members to a personal inscription (outside the framework of the pillow), although what was novel was that this majority had shrunk to less than 60% (16 out of 28).¹⁰¹ “We have never hitherto experienced a situation where up to 40% of the council members expressed one position and the majority, that is a totally legal democratic majority, was opposed.”¹⁰² Given the unprecedented balance of forces and upon the advice of Elyakim Rubinstein, the defense establishment’s legal advisor at the time, the chairman decided to convene another discussion of the council before transmitting the final recommendation to the defense minister. One can assume that the government legal apparatus and the chairman hoped that an additional discussion would in the end result in changing the position of other members on the proposal of the Division for Commemorating the Soldier on personal inscriptions, in a manner that would create the necessary majority on the council to ratify the proposal.

97 Ibid., pp. 24-25, from the statement by M. B. 98 Ibid., p. 30, from the statement by L. A. 99 See above, pp. 237-238. 100 See above, footnote 73, pp. 36-37. 101 Ibid., p. 38. 102 SCA (above, footnote 33), protocol of the Public Council meeting, 7.5.1994, p. 4, from the statement by Council Chairman Y. Ben Amitai.

244 

 Towards a Revolution Incorporating Personal Expression in the Inscription

In the beginning of July the discussion took place and it too, like its predecessor, was characterized by sharp tension.¹⁰³ Many on the council believed that this was a superfluous deliberation because the members reiterated their positions and hardly added anything new. The results of the tally for and against were identical to those that had been received in the survey that took place after the previous session. The chairman of the council still tried to persuade the members on the justice of his position by saying inter alia that “those who set the rules in 1948 did not do so at the foot of Mount Sinai… this is not the law from Sinai and there are a few things especially in the days that we are experiencing that undermine them and cast doubt upon them, etc. We are not in this situation of things that are so utterly sanctified that the human hand may not touch them.”¹⁰⁴ His comments, however, did not change anything in terms of the balance of forces. The government legal apparatus did not despair. Given the appreciable minority and the sensitivity of the issue and in order to allow the defense minister to see the entire picture, the legal advisor to the Defense Ministry requested the council to note in its decision submitted to the defense minister not only the fact that the decision was carried by a majority but the position of the appreciable minority as well. And tell him: “The majority was such and such but we will not take umbrage if you will choose this opinion or another. There was a democratic process, etc., but since the majority was so small and the issue is so sensitive an opinion was broached that you inform the minister: We are submitting before you the facts as they actually are, the two opinions. Choose according to your decision. We will not take umbrage if you choose this position or another or any decision that will be adopted. The objective is truly to provide expression to the entire range.” The result is dependent on the minister. In other words, there is no one who went to him and received, to the best of my knowledge, any indication whatsoever that he wants this thing or another. When the legal advisors from the Justice Ministry came to him he stood by the opinion of the council in its previous iterations, and there is no reason why he should not do so, but due to the small majority, because of the circumstances, the thought arose to submit this before you, and this we submit to you as a proposal. You are free of course to decide to bring before him only one opinion.¹⁰⁵

The legal advisor’s proposal and his other statements at the same session attested to his intention: to persuade the minister to adopt the minority opinion in the

103 See the protocol of the discussion (above, footnote 102). 104 DFCSA, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 7.5.1994, pp. 39-40, from the statement by the Council Chairman Y. Ben Amitai. 105 Ibid., pp. 30-33, from the statement by the legal advisor to the defense establishment E. Rubinstein.

Wide Fissures in the Council’s Unity 

 245

council.¹⁰⁶ And indeed, members on the council challenged him and declared that “it is not fair to come to the Defense Minister and tell him you decide. He doesn’t have to decide between matters. He should accept the opinion of the majority and ratify it or reject it.” Nevertheless the chairman was entitled to decide how to present the council’s decision to the minister and since it was assumed that the minister would read the protocol session in any event, in the final result a decision was adopted in the spirit of the legal advisor’s proposal. In a letter that was transmitted to Minister Rabin two days later, on July 7, 1994, the chairman of the council wrote him the following details: “The deliberation on the proposal of the High Court of Justice to allow an additional inscription outside of the ‘pillow’ took place on May 29, 1994. The position of the council members was 16 against any change, 11 for an additional inscription, one abstaining. I held an additional discussion on July 5, 1994 and in the end it emerges that each member of the council stuck to his position as noted above. To sum up: a. Most of the council members rejected the proposal of the High Court of Justice and requested strict adherence to the position that rejects any change from the existing situation. b. A sizable minority of the council members (40%) believes that one should allow an additional inscription on the tombstone, outside of the pillow, while setting clear restrictions that will be formulated very strictly. We request your decision and guidelines.”¹⁰⁷ Faithful to the practice that had existed since the establishment of the state, the defense minister adopted the decision of the majority on the Public Council and reported this in mid-August 1994 to the court. However, he also hinted in his letter that he could not totally ignore the position of the minority and thus he wrote: “After the recommendation of the council became clear to me… I decided that it is my obligation to act as I’ve been accustomed to since days gone by, i.e., to adopt the recommendation of the council. In my opinion, at the time that the balance scales incline to a certain direction, when these words are voiced by a majority of council members – and the majority of these are bereaved parents and all of them are people attentive to the feelings of the family of bereavement – it is my moral obligation to adopt the opinion of the majority. This was explained by the aspect of uniformity and follows the approach that has prevailed since the establishment of the state. It was also mentioned that families whose opinion 106 One should assume that Rubinstein was updated about what Y. Rabin had to say in his meeting in March with the state attorney general and others. From these words by Rabin one may possibly infer that he automatically adopted the council’s decisions only in cases where the decisions were adopted unanimously. On this see DMA, folder 44823, file 222, deliberation on the issue of the Wechselbaum High Court of Justice case, 3.11.1994. 107 DFCSA (above, footnote 104), pp. 44-45.

246 

 Towards a Revolution Incorporating Personal Expression in the Inscription

differs can bury their beloved in civilian cemeteries with the inscription they so desire. I respect, of course, the minority opinion on the council that reflected in the spirit of the court’s proposal, an approach favoring personal and individual expression.”¹⁰⁸ Considering everything the State Attorney’s office argued that the decision of the council and the decision of the defense minister were plausible and the Wechselbaum family’s petition should be rejected in the additional hearing.¹⁰⁹ The second Wechselbaum High Court of Justice case therefore reached the stages of decision as the two sides expended their remaining pieces of ammunition in the battle. Attorney Neeman argued that in the council’s deliberations the conflicting interests, in other words the principle of human dignity versus the principle of uniformity, were not considered nor was the possibility of striking a balance between them, and the defense minister refrained from weighing all the relevant considerations and achieving a proper balance between them but contented himself with a technical adoption of the council’s decision. Likewise Neeman directed the attention of the court to the accepted practice governing personal inscription that existed in England that he had detailed to the council, and to his proposal on setting rules for personal inscription that he had similarly presented to the council only to be rejected.¹¹⁰ Neeman reiterated his previous arguments regarding the de facto lack of uniformity that existed in the military cemeteries and backed up his arguments with recent photographs “that clearly demonstrate that the lack of existing uniformity in practice in the military cemeteries is only increasing. The families of IDF dead want to convey a personal expression of their grief, alongside the uniform grave.” In this context and in an unusual step, so it seems, Neeman directed the attention of the High Court of Justice panel to the fact that precisely in the vicinity of the tombstone of the son of one council member who belonged to the majority on the council that had rejected the amended proposal for a uniform inscription while relying on the claim of total uniformity, precisely there “a pillar was erected bearing the military medals of… it emerges that Mr… who supported and represented in the council’s deliberations… the position espousing the principle of total uniformity, in practice behaved like many bereaved parents who wanted to provide a personal inscription alongside the uniform tombstone of his deceased son, by his actions Mr.… conveyed that irrespective of his statements in 108 SCA (above, footnote 33), Supplementary Announcement by the Respondents, 8.15.1994, paragraph 6. 109 Ibid. 110 See above, p. 238 ff, as well as SCA (above, footnote 33), Response by the Petitioners to the Supplementary Announcement on behalf of the Respondents, 11.17.1994.

Wide Fissures in the Council’s Unity 

 247

the council deliberations, there are grounds for changing the existing situation, in the spirit of this petition.”¹¹¹ In response to the argument purporting lack of uniformity the Division for Commemorating the Soldier conducted a survey in a large number of military cemeteries and military sections and all in all visited about 12,000 graves. From the survey it emerged that only 8% (964) of the tombstones had unusual additions. On the basis of this finding the State Attorney’s office presented at the end of November 1994, on the eve that the court convened, an affidavit that included the details of the survey and based on these details the division explained that “uniformity in the military cemeteries and in the military sections is not only the guiding principle but also the actual situation.”¹¹² Nevertheless it is not clear how the division defined “unusual.” Likewise the data provided dealt with the cemeteries as one unit and there was no internal breakdown, in other words a separation between plots where those who fell in Israel’s early wars were buried (the War of Independence, the Sinai Campaign and the Six-Day War) and plots where the fallen from later periods were buried – where the deviations were more common. Thus for example, according to the survey itself at the Kiryat Shaul cemetery that was relatively new, the ratio of deviations totaled a quarter of all the tombstones. Therefore it is difficult to say that the details of the survey were instructive about the facts that were reported to the court regarding the presumably existing uniformity in practice. In the deliberation that the High Court of Justice held on the eve of its decision, and similar to the discussion that took place in 1992, council member David Giladi expounded before the justices the principles of equality and uniformity that the military cemetery was predicated upon, and his opinion that one should not swerve from them, and the current discernible apprehension that these principles were on the verge of collapse. He also expressed the position regarding the partnership of the state in bereavement, the grave and the inscription that awarded it the right to be a partner in setting the character of the graves and the contents of what was written on them. And this is what he had to say: The principle of justice and equality in war is rooted in our people’s consciousness since the time that King David commanded to equalize conditions of war between those who actually fought and those who stayed in the rear and protected it… The principle of equality and uniformity was practiced by our people in the military cemeteries since the War of Independence… and in unison from the simple private to the general they are buried side by side in 111 SCA (above, footnote 33), p. 6, paragraph 9.3. 112 Ibid., A Petition to Submit an Additional Affidavit on behalf of the Respondents, 11.30.1994. See also DFCSA, protocol of the Permanent Committee of the Public Council meeting, 11.24.1994, pp. 24-25, from the statement by Chairman of the Public Council Y. Ben Amitai.

248 

 Towards a Revolution Incorporating Personal Expression in the Inscription

in their graves and even the inscription on their tombstones is identical to each other. For 40 years the bereaved families have accepted this custom and sanctified it… one cannot ponder and dispute the fact that the sons belong to their parents, and the stranger will not sense the degree of anguish when a father brings his son for burial, and it is the father who recites the Kaddish when the way of the world is that the sons recite Kaddish on the death of their parents. But there is no comparison between bereavement as a result of disease, traffic accidents and the like to bereavement as a result of war, where the people and the state are direct partners to the bereavement. The genuine expression is provided by the military cemeteries and the handling of the bereaved families. This becomes part of the family of bereavement’s life. Therefore the family does not have an exclusive right to the grave and the inscription on the family tombstone because the entire people is partner to it. Furthermore, at the time that the souls of the parents will reunite with the souls of their beloved, and the tombstones resting here will be orphaned, then as well the military cemeteries will serve as a memorial for many generations for the entire people. The desire for personal commemoration burns in the souls of the family and one cannot quench it until the matter is resolved. But one should remember that one must not allow even a bereaved family to injure the spirit of another bereaved family… during one of the deliberations [of the Public Council] a bereaved father and council member broke in to the discussion and cried out in pain: and what are parents who lack the economic means to hire and finance a lawyer who will appeal from time to time until under their pressure the justices or the council members will agree to give into it and allow a substantial digression from what has been sanctified for decades expected to do?... and what will they do for the tombstones of the fallen from the War of Independence, when the souls of the parents of the dead have already ascended to the heavens, and the descendants of these families will also demand to emphasize the victims of that war’s heroism, and this for the sake of the following generations? And it is most natural that every family would want to place the heroism and superiority of its dead soldier in relief as opposed to another dead soldier, something that will give rise to new iniquities that in the final result will destroy the uniformity that has been sanctified since the establishment of the State of Israel.¹¹³

The Court’s Decision: Establishing a Legal Ruling Allowing a Personal Expression in the Inscription on the Military Tombstones At the end of March 1995, the justices of the High Court of Justice delivered their verdict. The justices in the current panel sustained the petition (apart from Justice Goldberg who reiterated his position from the previous deliberation). Their arguments were based on the precedent of the Ginosar High Court of Justice case but primarily on the principles on which Barak had formulated his position on the previous panel, in other words the need to consider the implications of the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty – enhancing the dual purpose of the Military 113 SCA (above, footnote 33), the statement by D. Giladi, 12.4.1994.

The Court’s Decision 

 249

Cemeteries Law (uniformity and providing personal expression). Therefore in the opinion of the court, one must allow alongside the preservation of uniformity of the tombstones provision for expressing the family members’ sentiments via the personal inscription on the tombstone. Since the defense minister had not in his decision accorded any weight to the purpose of considering the needs of the bereaved family in mourning that were to be expressed in a personal inscription, but relied solely on the purpose of uniformity – the High Court of Justice ruled that one could not uphold the decision of the defense minister.¹¹⁴ Furthermore, “between the principle of uniformity and the desire of the families to provide personal expression to their mourning no polar opposition existed. As it emerged from the minority opinion in the [Public] Advisory Council, one can bridge between the two by permitting individual expression in the framework of a uniform and controlled format. Consideration for human dignity therefore does not require annulling uniformity. All that is needed are changes in the rules of uniformity. On this matter… a broad spectrum of possibilities exists…”¹¹⁵ The justices in the majority opinion refrained from entering into the question in what place on the tombstone (or in its vicinity) would the option for giving personal expression be awarded. This matter was but a detail in an inclusive legislative process that was required to regulate the entire matter – legislation had already begun in the Knesset but had not been exhausted since the current petition was pending. The High Court of Justice hoped that in the wake of its decisions the legislative process would be completed. In the margins the High Court of Justice found it necessary to note that the ruling set down in its verdict was also consonant with accepted practice in British military cemeteries, and in this fashion the matter could be reconciled “with what is customary in other enlightened countries,” although “we do not necessarily have to be dragged along by the subject of the petition after concepts that are accepted practice in other countries.”¹¹⁶ Justice Matza, who raised the principle of uniformity (that found expression in the shaping of a military cemetery) almost to a level of sanctity, saw fit to add that particularly in the current situation the framework of uniformity was being blemished because it had been demonstrated that sticking to the existing policy of the Public Council constituted a decree that the public could not abide by. Therefore only a suitable arrangement that would allow a fitting personal expression in the framework of a uniform format would preserve uniformity.¹¹⁷ 114 SCA (above, footnote 33), the court’s decision, 3.27.1995. 115 Ibid., from the statement by Justice D. Dorner. 116 Ibid., from the statement by Justice S. Levin. 117 Ibid., from the statement by Justice E. Matza.

250 

 Towards a Revolution Incorporating Personal Expression in the Inscription

The justices further emphasized that one cannot ignore the deep changes that took place over the years in Israeli society – from an approach that sanctified the collective to an approach that placed the individual in the center – and the implications that should be drawn from these changes. In this vein Justice Levin cited the statement made by one member of the Public Council: “My dear sirs, this approach of the state, the relation between the state and the citizen, the state on behalf of the citizen, or the citizen on behalf of the state; when we impose our control over the military cemeteries we are as much as saying – your son, your father belongs to the state. You have nothing to say in the matter. I think this is an invalid approach…” On the basis of these words which in his opinion also reflected the position of the law, Justice Levin concluded that the normative approach of the law “negates the total paternalism of the state over the contents of the inscription on the tombstones of soldiers who fell in the line of duty.”¹¹⁸ Justice Dorner chose to emphasize in her decision the changes that occurred in Israeli society and what should be inferred from these changes regarding the option of adding a personal inscription. The justice cited research materials and other sources, and it would be proper to cite her words verbatim: People bring things from home, they bring jars, they bring dishes, I saw them bringing there all sorts of household utensils or bringing some musical instrument… to impart something intimate of a totally personal nature to the tombstone… they come there like going home. She comes to her son, she is going to her son to sing him a lullaby, time has frozen; time has stood still. She sings him a lullaby and for her he’s still alive, in some fashion she must address the dead son as if he were a living person. Only a few days ago a father telephoned me, an anonymous person whom I don’t know, and he said to me a sentence, and in general sometimes they state sentences that one finds unimaginable. And he told me that he would not be going on Memorial Day to the memorial ceremony. I asked him why, and he said “because I can’t bear it when they say our sons. This is not our sons this is my son.”¹¹⁹

Dorner further added that “during the initial years of the state a ‘collectivist’ concept was prevalent in Israeli society, in whose framework the individual was considered as the bearer of collective ideals and subordinate to them.”¹²⁰ In Dorner’s opinion, in those days There existed a uniformity in the appearance of the graves as part a formative Israeli consciousness that united the individuals and society. A grave lacking personal expression

118 Ibid., from the statement by Justice S. Levin. 119 Ibid., from the words of Justice D. Dorner who cited an interview with the author Y. Hendel on Israel Army Radio on 5.5.1992 in the program “Behind the Pain” that was broadcast to mark the appearance of her book (Hendel [1991]). 120 Ibid. D. Dorner is relying on Eisenstadt (1989), p. 41.

The Court’s Decision 

 251

reflected the power of society. It seems that the individual found consolation in belonging to the public and in the mourning of the entire nation of its beloved. As time passed changes occurred in Israeli society and alongside the traditional collective values a parallel culture developed, predicated on the values of individualism…¹²¹ The formal pattern of mourning no longer consoled the individual. The protective national framework remains in place, but together with it the need for personal expression and the bereaved families’ need to withdraw into themselves intensified. The experience of mourning was connected to the personal space of the individual…¹²² For years the rules of uniformity recommended by the [Public] Advisory Council – as all its members were bereaved parents – fit the accepted collectivist concept. These rules did not allow providing expression to personal details that distinguished the fallen soldier and made him “an only child” to his relatives. This strict observance of the principle of uniformity consoled the bereaved families. But times have changed. The uniformity that was preserved in the burial plots of the fallen in the War of Independence, the Sinai Campaign and the Six-Day War was shattered in the more recent burial plots. In the later plots, many bereaved families gave personal expression to their loss by the objects which they placed on the graves and the inscription that they added to the tombstones of their beloved… and indeed as explained above, it is possible that the total uniformity of the tombstones suited the will of the bereaved families in the early years of the state. However as time went by, individual needs and preferences changed. Today many bereaved families seek to give personal expression to their grief. The defense minister did not consider this desire of the families.¹²³

As stated, by a majority of four justices against one (Goldberg) this time the Wechselbaum family’s petition was upheld.¹²⁴ In the practical sense the verdict concluded that the defense minister must reconsider the requests of the petitioners on the basis of ordinances or rules that would be promulgated within a reasonable amount of time, and would properly balance between the need to guarantee uniformity in the military cemeteries and the need to allow personal expression to the family of the deceased.¹²⁵ Therefore, after in 1991 the principle of inscribing the Hebrew date exclusively came to an end, now in the beginning of 1995, due to an additional intervention by the High Court of Justice, the principle that one could not allow an inscription conveying personal expression came to an end.¹²⁶ 121 Ibid. 122 Ibid., D. Dorner is relying on Naveh (1993). 123 See above, footnote 115. 124 See above, footnote 114. 125 SCA (above, footnote 33), the court’s decision on 3.27.1995, the conclusion of the statement by Justice S. Levin. 126 And see Rubinstein (1997), who argued that the court by its decision inadvertently hurt the defense minister, as the minister relied, as obligated by law, upon the position of the council that had discussed the matter many times. Let us note nevertheless that the law did not obligate the minister to always accept the position of the council, especially as the latter was divided in its opinion, and the entire legal advisory apparatus in the Defense Ministry disputed the council’s position.

252 

 Towards a Revolution Incorporating Personal Expression in the Inscription

Once it became clear to the Wechselbaum family in the course of 1995 that the authorities would not allow inscribing its request on the pillow of the tombstone, the family took action and in the fall of that year it installed a pillow of its own, virtually identical to the military pillow, and on it inscribed the addition of “Brother to Jack, Limor and Adi.”¹²⁷

Fig. 36: Eran Wechselbaum’s tombstone in Kiryat Shaul Military Cemetery. Source: Author’s photographs, February 2002.

127 See in detail below, Chapter 11; S. Wechselbaum, telephone interview with the author, 11.15.2006.

Chapter 9 The Inscription Providing Personal Expression The General Legislative Process for Rules Governing the Inscription Providing Personal Expression at the Foot of the Tombstone (the Latter Half of the 90s) Implementing the Decisions of the High Court of Justice: Establishing Temporary Ordinances for an Inscription Providing Personal Expression Already in March 1995, immediately after the decision of the High Court of Justice and as dictated by its decision, the legal advisor to the defense establishment, Elyakim Rubinstein, began initiating primary legislation and ordinances that would implement those decisions. The intention was that pending completion of legislation at the Knesset – something that could take a long time – they would formulate the ordinances for the personal inscription in the Defense Ministry, and after they were discussed in the council and ratified by the minister they would serve as binding work norms.¹ The ordinances were formulated by attorneys in the legal advisor’s department at the defense establishment, in conjunction with the director of the Division for Commemorating the Soldier, members of the Rehabilitation Branch and the chairman of the Public Council. The minority position on the council in the deliberations preceding the High Court of Justice decision served as a basis for the ordinances,² while taking into account the previous experience regarding family requests for changes in the established text, as well as the situation that actually prevailed in the military cemeteries in Israel and the rules

1 SCA, High Court of Justice file 3807/96, N. Pearlman to H. Yisraeli, 4.27.1995, enclosing a draft proposal for uniform rules for adding an inscription conveying personal expression to the tombstones of IDF fallen and a draft memorandum of a legislative proposal and a letter of authorization from Defense Minister Y. Rabin to Chairman of the Public Council Y. Ben Amitai, 4.25.1995; FADCA, protocols of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee’s Subcommittee on Legislation meeting, 1.19.1996, pp. 3-4. See also The State Comptroller (1995), p. 832. The comptroller also called upon the defense establishment to fix a system of detailed rules that would regulate the entire issue of the tombstones, given the High Court of Justice’s decision in the second Wechselbaum case and the principle of balance between uniformity and the need to provide expression to the families’ sentiments. 2 See above, pp. 237-238. See also DFCSA, protocol of the Permanent Committee meeting with the Tombstone Subcommittee, 4.26.1995, p. 5, from the statement by Public Council Chairman Y. Ben Amitai.

254 

 The Inscription Providing Personal Expression

practiced in military cemeteries in the United States and in British military cemeteries in Israel. Thus for example those involved in the task discovered that in the United States a clear separation existed between the uniform inscription (located in the upper part of the tombstone) and the personal inscription (located in the bottom portion) and that the personal inscription was subject to control to ensure that it did not constitute any form of insult.³ In April 1995, the draft of the ordinances for adding a personal expression inscription on the tombstones of the IDF war dead was completed as follows: A. A bereaved family that wants the addition of an inscription providing personal expression will submit its request to the head of the Division for Commemorating the Soldier. B. The supplement to the inscription can include, for example, noting the family relationship and words of endearment and esteem as per the family’s request. It will not contain expressions that are insulting to the values of the State of Israel, the security of the state, respect for another person and his sentiments and good taste, or expressions of a political nature. Likewise they will not include the military post, the circumstances of death beyond what is noted on the tombstone pillow, as well as symbols, pictures, illustrations or other similar embellishments. C. The supplementary inscription will be in the front part of the tombstone (not on the pillow but in the region of the legs), its size will not exceed two lines of letters, and it will be performed along the width of the tombstone, in the font that appears on the pillow of the tombstone and in a size that will not exceed the largest of them. D. (1) The supplementary inscription will be subject to the authorization of the head of the Division for Commemorating the Soldier after receiving the agreement of family members (the parents and the widower/widow) and if they are no longer alive, the closest relatives. (2) Should the head of the Division for Commemorating the Soldier decide after he has consulted the Public Council for Commemorating the Soldier or its committee charged with addressing the topic that one cannot inscribe the desired text on the tombstone, he will inform the family of his decision accompanied by explanations. (3) A family that views itself injured by the decision of the head of the Division for Commemorating the Soldier not to allow the personal expression that 3 SCA, High Court of Justice file 5843/97, protocol of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee’s Subcommittee on Legislation meeting, 8.28.1996, p. 14, from the statement by Z. Gross; ibid., protocol of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee meeting, 1.22.1997, p. 23, from the statement by Z. Gross.

Implementing the Decisions of the High Court of Justice 

 255

it wishes to inscribe on the tombstone may submit an appeal to an appeals committee headed by a judge. This appeals committee will also decide upon application by the family members or the head of the Division for Commemorating the Soldier in cases where disputes exist between family members as aforesaid. E. No other supplementary inscriptions will be allowed; the Division for Commemorating the Soldier may remove an addition to the inscription or objects that were added without its authorization, and do so without receiving permission from the family. F. The principles above will apply also to existing tombstones. In such cases the supplement to the inscription will be performed by the Division for Commemorating the Soldier within a year from the date of the application.⁴ Let it be emphasized that paragraph E., that is the “the enforcement paragraph,” that was intended to solve the painful problem of the embellishments (upon which we will expand in the last chapter of our work), was introduced at the joint request of the director of the Division for Commemorating the Soldier and the chairman of the Public Council.⁵ Lawyers for the Defense Ministry did not introduce it in the original text that they had formulated. This paragraph was to have constituted a form of compensation to the position of the majority on the Public Council and coincided with the spirit of the law and the manner of its implementation until the 60s. These ordinances were intended to guide the Division for Commemorating the Soldier and the council till the completion of the Knesset legislation regarding the personal inscription and the promulgation of ordinances regarding the text of the personal inscription. Later on we shall see that these were the ordinances (with slight modifications) that the defense minister would subsequently present to the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee for ratification as permanent ordinances alongside the amendment to the primary legislation with regards to the personal inscription. The draft of the ordinances was submitted at the request of the defense minister to the council at the end of April 1995 to solicit its opinion. They bore a resemblance to the principles that had been formulated in the Defense Ministry and had been discussed by the Public Council during the deliberations of the second 4 See the protocol (above, footnote 2); SCA (above, footnote 1), a draft of the Ordinances for Military Cemeteries (uniform rules for the inscription and for the inscription conveying personal expression on the tombstones), 5755-1995. 5 See the protocol (above, footnote 2), p. 25, from the statement by Council Chairman Y. Ben Amitai.

256 

 The Inscription Providing Personal Expression

Wechselbaum High Court of Justice case and as may be recalled did not secure the council’s authorization. This time (after the decision of the High Court of Justice) the council ratified the ordinances, and without any modification. As we shall see below, the council members did consider the ordinances, but the chairman of the council made it clear at the start of the deliberations and reemphasized in the course of the deliberations that no votes would take place on the ordinances, for in his opinion the minister was not in any way obligated to bring the ordinances for discussion at the council. It is not clear on what the chairman, who in this case turned the council, contrary to its tradition, into a rubber stamp, was basing himself,⁶ but from the protocol of the discussion it emerges that this was not a session of the council plenum but a meeting of the Permanent Committee and the Tombstone Subcommittee, and even in this forum the members did not comment on it, except for one.⁷ One gathers the impression that council members had grown tired of discussing the issue of the personal inscription. The deliberations that had stretched on for a number of years compelled them to invest vast psychological efforts and forced them into internal wrangling that they had not been accustomed to in the past. They wanted to see the issue resolved already. Furthermore, since this was the very first session of the council after the High Court of Justice decision, some of the members did not use the meeting to deal with the topic on the agenda but to vent their frustrations, perform an internal reckoning and express their anger at the chairman of the council and the State Attorney’s Office all of whom in their opinion had lured the council into its debacle in the High Court of Justice.⁸ In any case, the references by council members to the ordinances, as we will expand below, did not result in any changes to the draft document of the ordinances tabled before a select forum of the council, and they were brought two days later to Defense Minister Rabin for ratification. However, the form that was submitted to Rabin for authorization was not identical to the ordinance draft that the council had examined. Paragraph E., namely the “enforcement paragraph,” was not included in the form of ordinances that was submitted to Rabin by the legal advisors of the defense establishment; but Rabin authorized the form under the assumption that these were the ordinances that were examined and ratified

6 In a letter to Defense Minister Y. Rabin pursuant to the council’s deliberation it was noted that “The council’s chairman and members gave their approval and expressed their agreement to the wording of the draft proposal.” On this see SCA (above, footnote 1), the letter of N. Pearlman. 7 With great frustration council member D. Lifschitz argued in the course of the meeting that “I feel to a certain extent that they have already rendered a decision, and that this deliberation is an academic discussion.” On this see the protocol (above, footnote 2), p. 29. 8 The protocol (above, footnote 2), and especially from p. 34 onwards.

Implementing the Decisions of the High Court of Justice 

 257

by the council.⁹ This matter raises many questions. We can imagine with a large measure of certitude that the omission of this paragraph was hardly fortuitous; Rabin, faithful to his longstanding approach that he should not enter into a conflict with the bereaved families,¹⁰ would not have ratified such a paragraph in any case. In the past he had already instructed the various echelons in his office to attempt to remove the embellishments only by information and persuasion. He would not agree to any administrative-coercive methods and this is the way he acted at the Defense Ministry for many years, and as a result the embellishment phenomenon became more widespread.¹¹ If this is indeed the explanation for the removal of “the enforcement paragraph,” one should ask what accounted for its advance inclusion in the ordinance form that was submitted to the council for discussion. Is it possible that the objective of the lawyers was to somewhat alleviate the frustration of the council majority due to the failure in the High Court of Justice so they could wind up the council deliberations on the matter of the ordinances as expeditiously as possible? We have already seen that a veritable abyss had opened between the lawyers in the Defense Ministry and the State Attorney’s Office and the council from the inception of the Wechselbaum affair in 1992 till its conclusion in 1995. This question remains unanswered. Although comments and reservations were voiced in the council about some of the ordinances, the council was not a decision-making factor in the ratification process, and they were ratified by Rabin at the end of April 1996.¹² Nevertheless it would be proper to address the main comments regarding the options for the personal inscription. It turns out that these pertain to the prohibition on noting within the framework of the personal inscription the receipt of military awards. Most council members did not feel that noting the decoration within the framework of the personal inscription constituted an insult to another fallen soldier, because noting the status of the decoration was identical to noting the rank of a fallen soldier. “And if by noting this rank this does not impair equality… then the decoration likewise should not impair it.”¹³ There were even those who argued that the decorations should be noted on the pillow itself.¹⁴ In another comment 9 Compare DFCSA (above, footnote 2) as well as a draft of the ordinances (above, footnote 4) to the draft proposal of the rules and the memorandum of the proposed legislation and the authorization letter from Y. Rabin (above, footnote 1). See also FADCA (above, footnote 1), the letter of N. Pearlman. 10 See in detail below, Chapter 11. 11 Ibid. 12 SCA, Rabin’s letter (above, footnote 1). 13 The protocol (above, footnote 2), p. 23, from the words by S. Dror. 14 Ibid., pp. 27, 30-31.

258 

 The Inscription Providing Personal Expression

voiced by one of the members, he disagreed with the prohibition on including symbols within the framework of a personal inscription or instead of it. In other words, he wondered why the personal inscription must only be verbal and not employ symbols: “If a person doesn’t want to express himself in a verbal inscription, but wants to express himself via a different inscription, why is he prohibited from doing so? Why is it prohibited to place symbols of the son’s unit on the tombstone instead of the inscription? We are speaking for the moment about the supplement, not about the pillow. In the supplement there will be 3-4 symbols of the IDF without any word. What is so calamitous? What’s bad? Will this insult somebody else? Will this harm the State of Israel? Harm the IDF? No… why not symbols? IDF symbols. Let’s imagine that they were not IDF. Let’s imagine that the fallen soldier was a member of the Sailors Association and the family wanted to put the symbol of the sailors. Why shouldn’t it be allowed to put it?... to write in words that he was a member of the Sailors Association yes, but to put the symbol of the Sailors Association no – I don’t find this justified.”¹⁵

The Opposition of the Defense Establishment to a Personal Inscription on the Pillow The Division for Commemorating the Soldier together with the Public Council were adamantly against having a personal inscription on the pillow. This would be devoted only to the official-objective description, the uniform inscription, and would continue to convey equality and uniformity – the very antithesis to the personal inscription. “Uniformity and equality are the most important values that one should insist upon in shaping the military cemeteries. Equality is most important to the families because it symbolizes the grief of the entire people and that death is not only the sorrow of the family but the sorrow of the entire people.”¹⁶ Furthermore, “we are proposing that it [the personal inscription] should not be on the pillow. We believe that the proper balance between equality [and between the personal expression] is of great importance to the families and they note this explicitly. When they arrive at the cemetery they do not look only upon the grave of their fallen soldier, but also upon other graves. A mother who does not have children tells us that if she would see the specific addition of siblings or the addition of the degree doctor of mathematics or words of endearment – this would violate the balance between equality and personal expression.”¹⁷ In other 15 Ibid., pp. 18-19, from the statement by Y. Neeman. 16 SCA (above, footnote 3), Response Affidavit by the state on 12.15.1997, p. 12, paragraph 12 A. 17 SCA, High Court of Justice file 5843/97, protocol of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Commit-

The Opposition of the Defense Establishment to a Personal Inscription on the Pillow 

 259

words, “the separation between the state-centered approach that is epitomized in the details on the pillow, realizes the human dignity of all the fallen soldiers, when equality and uniformity serve as their beacon, whereas what is below the pillow provides the bereaved family the option to express sentiment, esteem and the like towards their beloved, without this being interpreted as an act by the state or on its behalf, which awards the inscription the character of preference over the others.”¹⁸ But there were a few other reasons that can be defined as technical-substantial to the decision of the Defense Ministry and the Public Council to devote the pillow exclusively to the uniform inscription. First of all, there was the impossibility of entering onto the tombstone pillow lengthy personal inscriptions, for example a list of siblings. The idea that there should be a distinction between cases where the family requested a brief inscription – and then the inscription would be on the pillow – and cases where the requested inscription was lengthy – and then the inscription would be at the bottom of the tombstone – was also rejected, because it could provoke a sense of inequality among families, “and an ethical problem of discrimination, and very bitter feelings that these families would entertain [when their personal inscription would be entered in the bottom of the tombstone if such a distinction would exist].” Secondly, since the long existing practice was to set the tombstone 30 days after death with the assumption being that not in any every case would the families manage to prepare the text of the personal inscription by this day, this would deny them the possibility of adding the personal inscription at a later date if it was decided that the place of the personal inscription should be on the pillow. Furthermore, given the necessity of erecting the pillow at the end of the 30 days, this would create pressure on the relatives to make haste and reach agreement regarding the personal inscription, something that could harm families that were not necessarily homogenous. This would not be the case if they placed the personal inscription at the bottom of the tombstone.¹⁹ tee’s Subcommittee on Legislation meeting, 7.28.1996, p. 10, from the statement by Z. Gross – the source of the citation. See also ibid., protocol of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee’s meeting, 1.22.1997, p. 23, from the statement by Z. Gross; FADCA (above, footnote 1); DMA, folder 5341, file 5, protocol of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee’s Subcommittee on Legislation meeting, 11.29.1995; ibid., file L14028, Z. Gross to H. Yisraeli, 2.22.1996. 18 SCA (above, footnote 1), Announcement on behalf of the State Attorney General, 5.31.1996, p. 7, paragraph 20a. 19 SCA (above, footnote 1), Announcement on behalf of the State Attorney General on 5.31.1996. The citations are from the words of the head of the Rehabilitation Branch and Deputy Director General of the Defense Ministry O. Chico in the protocol of the Subcommittee on Legislation meeting (above, footnote 3), p. 11.

260 

 The Inscription Providing Personal Expression

The Opposition of the Defense Establishment to a Personal Inscription on the Pillow 

 261

Fig. 37: Instructions for inscription on tombstones in military cemeteries in the United States. Source: http://www.va.gov/vaforms/va/pdf/VA40-1330.pdf.

262 

 The Inscription Providing Personal Expression

Fig. 38: Example of personal inscription on British tombstones in the British military cemetery in Jerusalem. Source: Author’s photographs, April 2002.

Third, the practice both in the United States²⁰ as well as in the British military cemeteries in Israel where members of the Division for Commemorating the Soldier and the legal advisors of the Defense Ministry had toured was that the personal inscription appears below the uniform inscription. “We tried to learn, despite the fact that it is not obligatory to learn from others, what situation obtains today in the United States even in the case of non-Jewish cemeteries. In the United States they have very orderly rules, that resemble our rules in the sense that the inscription must pass supervision to ensure that it is not insulting, as in our rules… they have a standard inscription, they have an optional inscription on the pillow as per the request of the relatives, and they also have the personal inscription that explicitly appears below the standard inscription. I went specially to look at the cemetery near the Hyatt Hotel [Mount Scopus], an Australian cemetery from the First World War. There’s a cross there, and there lower down and separate is a

20 SCA (above, footnote 1), Legal Appendix MS/14, Illustrations of Standard Government Monuments.

The Legislators Agree To an Inscription Providing Personal Expression 

 263

personal inscription.”²¹ “This is a proper balance and this is the spirit of the High Court of Justice decision.”²² Fourth, “a final and very important reason, the tombstone has a sentimental value. Whoever is not bereaved will not understand the matter. We want to allow this also to veteran families. A family from the Yom Kippur War arrives who wants there to be a personal inscription on their son’s grave. If we go the way of inscription on the pillow, we have to remove the existing pillow and bring a new one. I [as a bereaved parent] from the depths of my soul and the souls of others, say that this is all almost intolerable… there are tombs, that one can see on Mount Herzl, that are in very poor condition, they are very worn out and people request not to change the tombstone for them…”²³

The Legislators Agree to an Inscription Providing Personal Expression and the Debate over the Location of the Inscription The High Court of Justice ruling following the additional hearing on the petition of the Wechselbaum family prompted an initiative by Knesset Member David Zucker from the Meretz Party as well as the previously mentioned initiative by the Defense Ministry to propose legislation for amending paragraph 5 to the Law of Military Cemeteries. Zucker’s proposal was presented in May 1995, and the proposal by the defense establishment was presented in December of that year.²⁴ Zucker’s proposal passed the preliminary reading in the Knesset plenum in early June 1995, and was ratified in a preliminary discussion in the Foreign Affairs and

21 The citation is from the words of Z. Gross (above, footnote 17). See also protocol of the Subcommittee on Legislation meeting (above, footnote 3), p. 11, from the statement by Z. Gross. 22 Protocol of the Subcommittee on Legislation meeting (above, footnote 3), p. 11, from the statement by Z. Gross. 23 Protocol of the Subcommittee on Legislation meeting (above, footnote 3), p. 12, from the statement by the head of the Rehabilitation Branch and Deputy Director of the Defense Ministry O. Chico. See also the announcement on behalf of the State Attorney General (above, footnote 19), p. 7; SCA (above, footnote 3), Response Affidavit, 12.15.1997, pp. 5-6; DMA, file L14028, protocol of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee’s Subcommittee on Legislation meeting, 8.28.1996, and especially pp. 11-13. 24 Knesset Protocols, 6.8.1995; Official Documents: Legislative Proposals, No. 2461, 12.13.1995, p. 279, Legislative Proposal Military Cemeteries (Amendment No. 3), 5756-1995.

264 

 The Inscription Providing Personal Expression

Defense Committee as well.²⁵ In the beginning of January 1996, the two proposals were jointly discussed in the Knesset plenum.²⁶ The purpose and timing of the two legal proposals were identical – to allow a personal inscription on the tombstones given the decision of the High Court of Justice and the additional hearing on the petition of the Wechselbaum family – but the text of the proposals differed. Zucker’s proposal spoke of the following three rules: adding a personal inscription that would not exceed one line, save for exceptional cases; the number of words, the size and font of the letters would be established in the ordinances; providing the option for adding a personal inscription on tombstones that had already been set prior to the law’s entry into force – in other words for the tombstones of the war dead since 1948 as well, the option of adding a personal inscription would be available.²⁷ The government’s proposal (the Defense Ministry’s) differed from Zucker’s in details but not in purpose. Additionally, it took advantage of the opportunity for making clarifications that were needed for some time regarding the primary part of the inscription, namely the uniform inscription. In the proposal the following rules were discussed: giving relatives (the spouse, sons and daughters, parents, brothers and sisters) an opportunity to inscribe a personal expression; the agreement of the other relatives of the soldier (as detailed above) to the requests of a relative to add the inscription providing a personal expression; authorization by a designated officer to the requested text by the relatives as an inscription of personal expression; setting down in the ordinances the rules regarding the uniform inscription and also the inscription providing a personal expression, their content, shape and location on the military tombstone and the way they would be authorized by the designated officer; giving permission to a relative who felt himself aggrieved by the decision of the designated officer regarding the inscription providing personal expression to turn to an appeals committee which could accept, change or ratify the decision by the designated officer.²⁸ The substantial difference between Zucker’s proposal and the government’s proposal was the matter of the personal inscription’s location. Zucker sought to add the personal inscription in the central portion of the tombstone, namely on the pillow, whereas the government, as decided in the Council for Commemorat25 Knesset Protocols (above, footnote 24); Official Documents: Legislative Proposals, No. 2469, 1.1.1996, p. 341, Legislative Proposal Military Cemeteries (Amendment No. 4) (Personal Inscription on the Tombstone), 5756-1996; DMA, folder 5341, file 5, protocol of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee’s Subcommittee on Legislation meeting, 11.29.1995. 26 Knesset Protocols, 1.1.1996. 27 Official Documents: Legislative Proposals, No. 2469 (above, footnote 25); Knesset Protocols (above, footnote 26), statement by Deputy Defense Minister O. Or. 28 Official Documents: Legislative Proposals, No. 2461 (above, footnote 24).

The Legislators Agree To an Inscription Providing Personal Expression 

 265

ing the Soldier and the Defense Ministry, insisted that the inscription should be in the margins – at the bottom of the tombstone, in the area of the feet. “This is ostensibly a technical debate, but it is far from a technical one.”²⁹ As opposed to the government’s proposal which saw no reason to clarify in the explanation accompanying the rationale behind the amendment to the law, Knesset Member Zucker did find it necessary to go into a lengthy explanation regarding the personal inscription. He dwelled on two explanations that mandated the personal inscription: The first explanation, with which we have already become acquainted via the deliberations of the High Court of Justice, was a need to strike a balance between the principle of equality and the principle of human dignity. The second explanation was not included in the explanations mentioned by the High Court of Justice judges, and it dealt with the essence of the concept of equality. According to Zucker, the idea of equality among the war dead (due to the reason that they had fallen in order to achieve that very same objective), which dictated the uniform model of the tombstones including the uniform inscription, had over the years metamorphosed from “a technical-formal equality” to a “living-substantial equality,” and it was now the accepted practice of Israel. In this manner “obtaining the objective of [substantial] equality required a different attitude to each individual. All this was subject to the condition that there was a minimum equal basis for all citizens. This approach was also fitting for the area that the amendment to the law dealt with: an equal basis for everyone and beyond that a personal expression adjusted to every individual. According to this approach the tombstone would remain in a uniform size, would have a uniform shape and most of the inscription… would be of identical format. In addition to this one line would allow a unique and characteristic personal expression to the fallen soldier and his family. This approach expresses the concept of equality in a much fuller and more substantial fashion.”³⁰ In the beginning of January 1996 a joint first reading for the two proposals took place. The number of participants in the discussion was only six, and they passed the law unanimously. General agreement prevailed among the participants in the deliberation on the matter of permitting the personal expression, and not only for the reason that uniformity was important as long as it was not disputed, and now that it was disputed and there were families who desired a personal expression, they should be allowed this, but primarily for the reason that Israeli society itself had moved on from emphasizing the collective to empha29 Knesset Protocols (above, footnote 26) – the citation is from the statement by Knesset Member D. Zucker. 30 Official Documents: Legislative Proposals, No. 2469 (above, footnote 25), words of explanation – the source of the citation.

266 

 The Inscription Providing Personal Expression

sizing the individual. “Here [in the amendment to the law] there is an important and different balance between the concept of our entire society, that increasingly viewed itself as a collective society in the past, while today there are ever widening breaches in the direction of individualism and viewing the individual as taking center stage.”³¹ This is especially the case as “reality has long decided this issue. Many families give a personal expression on the grave either in the form of floral bouquets, or in the form of an inscription, or in the form of an embellishment to the tombstone. Reality on this matter was stronger than anything and the principle of uniformity has already been breached by the actions of many families. And in this respect the proposed legislation is moving with reality.”³² There was also agreement regarding the need for the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee to establish rules regarding matters that should not be written in the personal inscription (“you would not want that they should write things about the commander of the fallen soldier… there are things that you would not want to assume that they should be written in a military cemetery”).³³ Nonetheless apprehension was expressed about discriminating against those fallen soldiers who have no families (and this was true with regards to past, present and future), because no one would be concerned to act on their behalf for a personal inscription. Therefore, Knesset Member Ariel Weinstein from the Likud suggested that in such cases an additional line would be written by the entire Jewish people acting as a surrogate family “just as the families display concern – the Jewish family of the entire people will see to that same line. Then equality will be obtained. On the one hand the desire of the families will be fulfilled and on the other hand… a fallen soldier without family will receive his inscription from the family of the Jewish people.”³⁴ The only individual expressing a contrary opinion regarding permitting the personal inscription, although in the end result he voted like the other members

31 Knesset Protocols (above, footnote 26) – the citation is from the words of Knesset Member M. Eitan. 32 Ibid. The citation is from Knesset Member D. Zucker. 33 Ibid. See also Knesset Protocols (above, footnote 24), the remark by Knesset Member R. Zeevi: “How do you intend to guarantee that the pained and the bereaved family would not write things against the state, against commanders, against the Army?” And the response by Knesset Member D. Zucker, ibid.: “I’ll tell you what the principle is: Something will have to be said about a prohibition against harming the dignity of certain values or certain people… on freedom as well there are limitations and those are the freedom of others, the rights of others or their status.” Compare with the protocol of the Subcommittee on Legislation (above, footnote 25), where the question of what were the boundaries of freedom of personal expression, if such limits at all existed, arose. 34 Knesset Protocols (above, footnote 26) – the citations are from the statement from Knesset Member A. Weinstein.

The Law is Passed in the Knesset 

 267

in favor of passing the law on its first reading, was Knesset Member Yigal Bibi from the National Religious Party. Some of his words recalled the mood in the Knesset in 1950 in its deliberations on the subject of the tombstones inscription. One can assume that his statement was influenced by the essential outlook of his party which emphasized the state-centered approach and responsibility to the entire Jewish people and to the collective. Bibi emphasized that: You know how this begins, but you don’t know how this is going to end. In Army life everybody’s equal. There is no situation there that everyone does something else. I think that also in their death everybody has to be equal, with uniform tombstones, without introducing politics and keeping score with all these verses. I want to ask you [the deputy defense minister] a question. If a person should come and want to write a verse from the Torah he will write: “For he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will requite vengeance to his enemies,” he will write “a wicked and foolish people,” he will write “Your ministers are corrupt and friends of miscreants,” in the proposed legislation as presented here no limitation is imposed on the text… there is no limitation on the contents… for heaven’s sake at least when we speak of the IDF and IDF soldiers, let us really ensure such uniformity. We should not write, we should not create a situation where somebody goes to the graveyard and they should say: he is from this current, the latter is from that current, this one is religious, that one is secular, one this way another a different way. One deduces it from the inscription. Let them be at least united there. Let’s be united at least in bereavement. If we can’t get along in life, and division and hatred prevail between us the living, at least when we’re talking about IDF soldiers may this not be the case. So three or four families will be offended… let us in this matter act with caution and refuse to allow that via the tombstones, disputes should arise, heaven forbid. In my opinion one should be extremely cautious and not promote this matter that could provoke division in the cemetery.³⁵

At the end of the discussion Bibi as well endorsed the proposals presented by the government and Knesset Member Zucker and it was referred to the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee for discussion.³⁶

The Law is Passed in the Knesset and the Struggle over the Location of the Personal Inscription The deliberations of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee took place in the framework of a special subcommittee comprising Knesset Members Moshe Nissim (Chairman) of the Likud and Naomi Hazan of Meretz and it was authorized by the committee plenum to examine and approve the bill for a second and third reading. 35 Ibid. The citation is from the statement by Knesset Member Y. Bibi. 36 See above, footnote 26. See also DMA, file L14028, H. Yisraeli to O. Chico.

268 

 The Inscription Providing Personal Expression

The subcommittee was determined to present the bill for a second and third reading without any reservations in order to prevent wrangling in the plenum on such a delicate subject, wrangling that could offend the fallen and their families. For this reason Zucker also agreed to merge his proposal with the government proposal. Likewise the committee ardently desired to wind up the discussions as quickly as possible in order to bring about the passage of a law before the Knesset dissolved. Indeed, aside from a demand by the subcommittee to note in the body of law that the ordinances that would be enacted by the minister would have to receive ratification from the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee and an explicit clarification that it was to apply also to existing tombstones, no amendments of substance were introduced into the law. The deliberations of the subcommittee concluded with total agreement, and the bill was tabled before the plenum for a second and third reading in the beginning of May 1996.³⁷ However, the deliberations of the subcommittee could have been briefer if the focus of the discussion had not been diverted into a discussion of an issue that was unconnected with the primary legislation but to future ordinances – the issue of the location of the personal inscription. The deliberation on this issue was no less important than the debate that took place at the time on the actual option of a personal inscription. Only after the deliberations on the matter became protracted, and the subcommittee did not manage to reach agreement, its two members decided to cease their involvement in the matter, and leave deliberation to the stage of ratifying the ordinances while ensuring that first and foremost the primary legislation would pass.³⁸ Knesset Member Zucker together with Knesset Member Hazan and parents of the fallen such as the Wechselbaum, Spiegel and Tsoriano families, who appeared before the subcommittee, could not reconcile themselves with the position of the defense establishment that the pillow would only include the uniform inscription, and the personal inscription should be allotted to the realm of the feet. They demanded that the personal inscription should also be on the pillow or at least part of it should be there and the balance that for technical reasons could not be included there – should be inscribed on another part of the tombstone. From their point of view this constituted discrimination against the family, an insult to its dignity, disregard for it (“head” as opposed to “feet”) and sent a message that the family was inferior to the state when it came to the matter of to whom the son 37 DMA, folder 44823, file 222, protocol of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee’s Subcommittee meeting, 3.12.1996; ibid., file L14028, Z. Gross to N. Pearlman, enclosing the version of the law proposal approved by the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee’s Subcommittee; ibid., Z. Gross to N. Schayek, 4.16.1996. 38 See above, footnote 37. See also FADCA (above, footnote 1).

The Law is Passed in the Knesset 

 269

and his grave belonged. Zucker emphasized: “I am a devotee of the school that will always remind itself: The fallen soldier first of all was somebody who was killed in the eyes of his parents and family, his spouse and children and only later as someone killed on behalf of the state. The entire legislation upon which this issue rests as well as the establishment of a Public Council was born during the collectivist days where the nation received much greater emphasis than it does today and this balance is in the process of changing. This legislation expresses the changing balance between the collective and the individual. I propose that we should remember that this constitutes a personal expression first and foremost and only later is the deceased a fallen soldier of the nation because he fell on behalf of everybody.”³⁹ Ms. Tsoriano expressed her great disgruntlement, and in the process emphasized that this cheapened and insulted the fallen soldier and his family to whom he belonged first and foremost: My son’s name is Gil Tsoriano. To note this at the margins of the tombstone? This means that if I want to note: he was handsome and courageous, or something else that I would like to note about my son because this is how I feel towards him, I should write this at his feet? Did you foresee that they should write Gil Tsoriano of blessed memory and at his feet they should write that he was kind spirited, wise and handsome? No. If a family wants to add that the family was destroyed in the Holocaust – does one write this at the foot of the grave? Who conceived this idea of disgracing my son and proposing a law that we will not accept and will not use?... Are we to shame our dead and write words at their feet, when there [on the pillow] they write the name? Can you imagine something like this?... This is my son. I gave birth to him and I educated him to enlist in the IDF elite unit. He was killed in the IDF and to my sorrow not in battle but in an accident… they should have allowed the option of a personal expression rather than make a mockery of the bereaved families. This is clearly a disgrace to the deceased… in general our children don’t belong to us. I am most skeptical.⁴⁰

Regarding the disgrace Shmuel Wechselbaum explained: “There is the matter of human dignity. To place the inscription near the feet – that is definitely not human dignity.”⁴¹

39 Protocol of the Subcommittee meeting (above, footnote 37), pp. 14-15, from the statement by Knesset Member D. Zucker. 40 FADCA (above, footnote 1), p. 16 – the citation is from the statement by Ms. L. Tsoriano. 41 Ibid., p. 9. See also the statement by Knesset Member H. Merom, in the protocol of the Subcommittee on Legislation meeting (see above, footnote 25), p. 15, who emphasized: “I think that we are confronting one of the two, either we accept the fact that there will be a personal inscription on the tombstone and the tombstone is the pillow, or not. Once we have arrived at the conclusion that we are prepared for there to be a line of personal expression, I believe that one must not transform this personal expression to something of an inferior grade on the tombstone, and not to do this on the pillow means cheapening it.”

270 

 The Inscription Providing Personal Expression

Zucker and others were not persuaded by the explanations advanced by the senior echelons in the defense establishment that dealt with the issue that one should not write the personal inscription on the pillow not only for “technical, substantive” reasons⁴² and not only because on the British and American military graves a separation existed between the uniform inscription and the personal inscription. Members of the defense establishment emphasized the extensive blow to equality and to parents who could not add a personal inscription to the pillow for technical reasons even if they were to make the letters smaller and more crowded – how would those discriminated against feel as opposed to their neighbors and how would the families of those who fell in the past feel if they wanted thanks to the amendment to the law to have the personal inscription on the pillow and would not be able to do so. And this is what Oren Chico, the head of the Rehabilitation Branch, and Zvia Gross, the legal advisor to the Defense Ministry, argued: I apologize for inviting you to these streets of grief, but come to the streets of grief and see that even on a technical level, in the vast majority of cases there is no room to introduce this on the pillow… a tremendous sensitivity exists that amazes someone who isn’t involved in the matter. I have witnessed the nature of an inspecting glance to ascertain if one tombstone is not slightly more prominent by a number of millimeters to the next; “Is the letter on my tombstone where the name of my son is written the same identical size as the letter of the one who fell the next day.” People also make a warped rationalization on this matter: “My son fell by suicide while the second son fell in battle and therefore they made the letter of my son smaller.” These strange nuances under such horrible circumstances exert a powerful impact that goes beyond all proportion, but whoever understands the predicament in which these people find themselves in the matter… the present situation is that for different fallen soldiers there is a difference between the tombstones. The difference is in the size of the formal text, that very same text of the state, both in terms of its volume and significance because it pertains to the circumstances of death and to a particular name. Situations are currently created that when the name of the family is lengthy or when the name of the parents is long, the letters are downsized… Knesset Member Zucker, life is very difficult for these people. It is very difficult in the sense that among other things they want the name of the siblings, for the sake of the matter, or the words of endearment, to be near their names, near the name of the soldier and they won’t be able to do so – not out of malevolence but because there is no room there. To write it some other place means something different than writing it there… the existing pillows are occupied and crammed full. And if they won’t be able to write it in the very same place as other families will be able to do, they will feel discriminated… families who arrive don’t look only at their grave, they look at the grave to their right and to their left. If they see that the name appears precisely adjacent and they weren’t allowed to do so and maybe they will also want this matter and they won’t be able, they will feel a very difficult sensation of being cheated and discriminated against. They will encounter two problems – One, they won’t have room in any case; secondly, they will 42 See above, p. 259.

The Law is Passed in the Knesset 

 271

deliberate because it would be very hard for them to uproot the pillow and change it to something else. Why is it at all necessary to create such a dilemma and hurt the feelings of the families? We appear here in the name of the families’ sentiments, precisely as Knesset Member Zucker comes in the name of what he considers to be the families’ sentiments and we contend that most of the families – because we speak with representatives of the families – oppose this matter.⁴³

But these explanations did not budge Zucker and Hazan from their positions either. The statements by the bereaved families that appeared before the committee left a deep impression upon them. The committee’s chairman, Knesset Member Moshe Nissim, heard the representatives of the Public Council and was persuaded that the personal inscription had no place on the pillow, and there equality and uniformity had to be preserved. “We must prevent a situation where one person can add a personal inscription on the pillow and the next person will not be allowed to do so.” He had another explanation rooted in a fundamental outlook resembling that of the council and the defense establishment regarding claims on the fallen soldier, that differed from the position taken by Zucker and the families that appeared before the subcommittee: “My approach is that when there is a fallen soldier, he is a fallen soldier who died to defend the country and he is in the same degree a fallen soldier for the members of his family,” and therefore “there should be an area for the State of Israel, exclusively for the State of Israel, where on every grave they should write the same thing, that means the same formula, construction.” Nissim however sought to find a compromise between the state’s position and that of Zucker and the families who appeared before the committee. The compromise that he identified was to allow the personal inscription on any place on the tombstone where the families of the fallen should so desire – with the exception of the pillow: “Everywhere else is free for personal expression.” It was clear to him that his proposal would mar the uniform framework of the personal inscription, but this was the price of compromise. The representatives of the Defense Ministry, although they had not consulted with the council, were prepared for such a compromise. Even Zucker did not insist any further, but Hazan did not change her position. She argued that precisely in the name of equality – that underpins the uniformity – one should allow families to enter their personal inscription on the pillow “because I believe that most would enter a personal inscription on the pillow, if possible, and then there’ll be greater equality, there will be greater

43 See protocol of the Subcommittee meeting (above, footnote 37) – the citations are from the statements by Z. Gross and O. Chico.

272 

 The Inscription Providing Personal Expression

uniformity.” The struggle between the sides concluded with a decision to defer it to the stage of deliberation on the ordinances.⁴⁴ At the beginning of May 1996 Knesset Member Moshe Nissim presented the law to the Knesset plenum in the name of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee. He alluded to differences of opinion in the committee regarding the location of the personal inscription, but in the final result “we reached the conclusion that there is room to provide a personal expression, to allow a personal expression, but never by undermining the general norm and principle of uniformity and equality.” For this reason “the right to provide a personal expression will apply to existing tombstones as well, and this in the name of the very same norm that we established of having uniformity and equality. It is insupportable that personal expression will be granted here only to parents whose sons fell these very days to our distress, or heaven forbid in the future, whereas those whose sons had fallen already in the War of Independence will be prevented from doing so. This is being done on the basis of that very same principle of uniformity and equality.”⁴⁵ It would appear that Nissim digressed from the agreements of the committee by announcing to the plenum the compromise that he was proposing on the issue of the location of the personal inscription had secured broad agreement in the committee. On the pillow “there will be uniformity and there will be full equality on the tombstones of all the fallen soldiers. But since the tombstone is a very large tombstone, that has various forms, aside from the ‘pillow,’ we have established in principle, in accord with the government, that any parent can provide a personal inscription on the other parts of the tombstone as he so elects. I believe… that this is the most proper and fitting arrangement when we are dealing with a very, very sensitive and delicate topic or when differences of opinion exist among the bereaved parents themselves.”⁴⁶ Nissim further added that the rules of the inscription would be set in the ordinances and that the personal inscription could not be of a sort that would “aggravate differences among the Jewish people. We know that there are various opinions about various wars, various operations, and all we need is to see a divisive expression among the various opinions, let us say heaven forbid that because of this person another person fell and another would provide another reason that sows and aggravates division within the people… a personal expression means something of a family nature and definitely not a political nature, not of the type that will aggravate divisions among the Jewish people.”⁴⁷ 44 Ibid. The citations are from the statements by Knesset Members M. Nissim and N. Hazan. 45 Knesset Protocols, 5.1.1996. 46 Ibid. 47 Ibid.

The Law is Passed in the Knesset 

 273

By a unanimous vote the plenum passed the amendment to the law (amendment number 3 to the Military Cemeteries Law, 5756-1996) in the second and third readings.⁴⁸ A comparison of the contents of the amendment to the law with the proposed government legislation demonstrates they are identical with two exceptions: the first, changing the institution of the “designated officer” in the original law and in the government proposal to an institution “a delegated authority” defined in the amended law as “the head of the Division for Commemorating the Soldier in the Defense Ministry.” The second, under the amendment to the law the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee was authorized to ratify the ordinances – that the defense minister was responsible for composing – that deal with the rules governing the uniform inscription and the personal inscription, their content, their shape and their location on the military tombstone (that was now defined as “everything built on a military grave”). According to the government proposal, the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee had no standing on the issue.⁴⁹ The legislators therefore did not agree to leave this sensitive subject to the exclusive responsibility of the minister. Below are the major points of the text of paragraph 5 – namely the paragraph on “tombstones” in the Military Cemeteries Law – as amended (amendment number 3) in May 1996 and which is in force today (with the ordinances which we will dwell upon below) that currently establishes all the rules connected with the tombstones and the inscriptions upon them: A. Upon every military grave a military tombstone will be erected at the expense of the state; however the delegated authority may allow the relative of the deceased soldier who was brought for burial in a civilian cemetery to erect on his grave a different tombstone. B. A format of uniformity and equality shall be preserved with regard to the shape of the military tombstones, their dimensions and the inscriptions on them including the content and the formula; to the text of the uniform inscription on the tombstone (hereafter – the uniform inscription) one can add, at the behest of the deceased soldier’s relatives and with the concurrence of the other relatives, an inscription providing personal expression, when the text is approved by the delegated authority in accordance with rules that will be determined in subparagraph (c). C. Rules governing the uniform inscription and the inscription providing personal expression, their contents, shape and location on the military tomb48 Official Documents: The Statute Book, No. 1590, the Law of Military Cemeteries (Amendment No. 3), 5756-1996. 49 Compare the law in the Official Documents (above, footnote 48) to the legislative proposal in Official Documents: Legislative Proposals (above, footnote 24).

274 

 The Inscription Providing Personal Expression

stone, and their method of approval by the delegated authority will be set by the defense minister in ordinances, with the ratification of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee. D. The shape and dimensions of the military tombstone will be fixed by the delegated authority. E. (1) A relative who views himself aggrieved by the decision of the delegated authority not to approve the addition of an inscription providing personal expression according to subparagraph (b) the latter part, may appeal it with the consent of the other relatives to an appeals committee… (3) The appeals committee can accept the appeal fully or partially, and modify the decision of the delegated authority or sustain its position. (4) The decision of the appeals committee will be accompanied by explanations…⁵⁰ As noted above, from the text of the law we infer that no directives were established regarding its enforcement, in other words allowing the authorities to prevent any change or impairments of the formats that were promulgated in the amended law, the removal of embellishments by the Defense Ministry, etc. The law’s text does not create an opening for incorporating enforcement in the ordinances. The High Court of Justice had already hinted at the option of enforcement when it had proposed a compromise proposal to the parties at the opening of the second Wechselbaum High Court of Justice case. Likewise the passage on enforcement was incorporated in the draft of the temporary ordinances that were submitted in April 1995 for the Public Council’s approval immediately following the High Court of Justice decision in the second Wechselbaum case.⁵¹ We have already dwelled on the policy of the Defense Ministry to prevent any conflict situation with the bereaved parents, a policy that apparently accounted for the removal of an option for enforcing the law.

Ratifying the Ordinances Concerning the Inscriptions and the Dispute Surrounding the Location for Noting Relatives of the First Degree The draft of the ordinances that was formulated in the wake of the amendments to the law passed through a number of peregrinations from the time that the defense minister authorized the temporary ordinances in April 1995, immediately after the 50 Official Documents: The Statute Book (above, footnote 48). 51 See above, p. 253 and onwards.

Ratifying the Ordinances Concerning the Inscriptions 

 275

High Court of Justice decision in the second Wechselbaum case⁵² and until the passage of the final version via the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee at the end of April 1997. The first part of the draft ordinances that were set in 1995 dealt with the uniform inscription (where no changes were made) and set forth the following rules: 1. In a military cemetery and in the military section in a civilian cemetery a format of uniformity and equality in terms of the shape of the tombstone, the text of the writing and the contents of the inscription will be preserved. 2. On the head of the tombstone [pillow] the following details will appear: A. Symbol, rank and serial number, personal name, family name. B. The mother’s name, the father’s name. C. City of birth in Israel. If the slain soldier is not Israeli born – country of origin. D. Hebrew birthdate. One may add the secular birthdate upon the request of the family. E. Inscription of the circumstances of death according to the following formats: (1) Fell in battle while noting the place of death. (2) Fell in the line of duty. If the slain soldier fell in operational activity, one can note the place of death, upon the request of the family. (3) Fell during his service. (4) Passed away during his service. F. Hebrew date of death. One can add the secular date of death upon the request of the family. G. The age of the slain soldier at the time of his death. H. The amalgam of the letters ‫תנצבה‬.⁵³ In the latter half of 1995 and the first half of 1996 elaborations and certain changes were made to the second half of the ordinances, in other words the ordinances for personal inscription, on the basis of the temporary ordinances for personal inscription that were authorized by the minister in April 1995. At the end of May 1996, after the amendment to the law has been passed, the minister approved the ordinances, and they were referred to the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee 52 Ibid. 53 See SCA, High Court of Justice file 3807/96, draft of Ordinances for Military Cemeteries (Uniform Principles for the Inscription and for Adding an Inscription Conveying Personal Expression on the Tombstones), 5755-1995, and see also SCA, file 6069/00, Response Affidavit on 12.7.2000, pp. 10-11.

276 

 The Inscription Providing Personal Expression

for ratification.⁵⁴ A comparison of the temporary ordinances for an inscription providing personal expression formulated by Minister Yitzhak Rabin at the end of April 1995⁵⁵ with the permanent ordinances submitted by his successor, Shimon Peres, in May 1996 for the ratification of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee⁵⁶ shows that the changes made were minor.⁵⁷ Again what is striking about the ordinances that Peres submitted in 1996 is the absence of an “enforcement clause” regarding the embellishments,⁵⁸ and this as opposed to the ordinances that were approved by the council in April 1995 – and we have already gone into lengthy detail why this passage was omitted.⁵⁹ The deliberations of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, both in the Subcommittee for Legislation headed by Zucker as well as in the committee plenum, stretched out over 10 months – from August 1996 to May 1997. Regarding the uniform inscription the following changes were introduced: the ordinances detailed the symbols that were permitted for inscription on the tombstone – the IDF symbol, the General Security Service symbol, the Mossad symbol, the police symbol and the border patrol symbol; it was noted in the ordinances that upon the request of a relative one could add to the name of a fallen soldier his previous family name and his nickname; it was noted in the ordinances that upon the request of a relative, in the case that the dead soldier was not a member of the Jewish faith, one could write the secular date both of birth and death, without writing the Hebrew dates; it was noted in the ordinances that upon the request of the relative, in the case that we were referring to a dead soldier born abroad, one could write both the country of birth and the place of birth; it was noted in the ordinances that upon the request of a relative one can omit the letters ‫;תנצבה‬ the ordinances added two new categories of death to the four existing categories prior to 1997: “fell in operational activity” noting the place of death and “passed away.”⁶⁰

54 SCA, High Court of Justice file 3807/96, Ordinances for Military Cemeteries (Rules for the Inscription on the Tombstone), 5756-1996, 5.28.1996; protocol of the Subcommittee on Legislation meeting in SCA (above, footnote 3). 55 See the ordinances above, p. 253 and onwards. 56 See the ordinances in SCA (above, footnote 54). 57 Ibid.; SCA, High Court of Justice file 3807/96, protocol of the deliberations on 6.2.1996, p. 6. 58 See the ordinances in SCA (above, footnote 54). 59 See above, p. 255 and onwards. 60 DMA, file L20571, Z. Gross to H. Yisraeli, enclosed are the ordinances ratified by the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee on 4.1.1997 which the minister published in the Official Documents three weeks later; Takdin CD, Ordinances for Military Cemeteries (Rules for the Inscription on the Tombstone), 5757-1997, which Defense Minister Y. Mordechai signed on 4.23.1997 (paragraph 2 (6) (c) was added only in 2000 and we will refer to this below).

Ratifying the Ordinances Concerning the Inscriptions 

 277

The ordinances of the uniform inscription ratified by the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee corresponded in practice to the existing custom, in other words the existing situation on the eve of the ordinances ratification,⁶¹ aside from the addition of two new categories of death. These categories were not originally included in the document of ordinances that the defense minister submitted to the committee for passage, and they were added by the committee at the very end of its deliberations at the beginning of April 1997.⁶² The category “passed away” anchored in the ordinances an existing formulation which was used for those eligible for military burial but who were no longer in service, reserve major generals and lieutenant generals as well as retired inspectors and chief inspectors.⁶³ The innovation was in the category “fell in operational activity”; this category was intended “to provide an answer to the need that arose to note separately circumstances that on the one hand are not in the category of ‘fell in battle’ but were more operational than ‘fell in the line of duty,’ an expression that could include for example a chance accident in the rear.”⁶⁴ As we shall see in the next chapter, during the 90s the actual circumstances of death made this category incumbent, and there was growing dissatisfaction on the part of the fallen soldiers’ families with the category “fell in the line of duty” (that sometimes included borderline cases of suicide). This category had experienced a vast depreciation and the families demanded an intermediate category, between “fell in the line of duty” and “fell in battle.” We shall see below that the Army, attentive to complaints by the families of fallen, likewise proposed at the beginning of 1997 adding the category “killed in operational activity.” The initiative by the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee and the decision that was taken corresponded therefore to needs that had to be met in any event. Knesset Members Yossi Sarid and Binyamin Begin were the ones who initiated and led the inclusion in practice of the intermediate category “fell in operational activity.” Begin told the committee: “I would like to make a proposal – both to the Knesset members and the Defense Ministry personnel. I listened to… the words of Knesset Member Sarid. That is would be desirable… to have a category on an intermediate level between ‘fell in battle’ and ‘fell in the line of duty’ that encompasses many cases, even those that have no connection, even an indirect one to an operation. I took these matters under advice and I searched in my mind and in 61 The ordinances in DMA (above, footnote 60). 62 Letter from Z. Gross (above, footnote 60); SCA, High Court of Justice file 5843/97, protocol of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee meeting, 3.26.1997, pp. 44-46. 63 Letter of Z. Gross (above, footnote 60). 64 Ibid. – the source of the citations; protocol of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee meeting (above, footnote 62).

278 

 The Inscription Providing Personal Expression

the dictionary… I thought that there could be a formula… ‘fell at his post.’ Not in a totally fortuitous accident, for example if a vase fell upon him when he was on furlough at home, but ‘fell at his post.’” Sarid added: “One should establish some sort of intermediate level… there are cases where it is not ‘fell in the line of duty’ but in contradistinction, on a factual basis, this is not ‘fell in battle’ either.”⁶⁵ In the end result what was decided (currently at the recommendation of the Defense Ministry) was the text “fell in operational activity.”⁶⁶ At exactly the same time the Army also proposed this formula,⁶⁷ and it was also included in a potential text that was currently decided by the Public Council describing those who fell in the “Helicopter Disaster,” in response to the appeal by 15 families against the text that was determined by the Division for Commemorating the Soldier.⁶⁸

Fig. 39: The category “Fell in operational activity,” the military cemetery in Safed. Source: Author’s photographs, April 2002.

The ordinances regarding personal expression ratified by the committee were almost identical to those presented by Minister Peres for the committee’s approval

65 Protocol of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee meeting (above, footnote 62). 66 The letter of Z. Gross (above, footnote 60). 67 YLA, letter from A. Rotem to the head of the Rehabilitation Branch, 3.5.1997. 68 See below, p. 323.

Ratifying the Ordinances Concerning the Inscriptions 

 279

in May 1996,⁶⁹ but there were also two important differences. The first difference pertained to the location of the personal inscription. The proposed ordinances by the minister decreed that “the addition of the inscription providing personal expression will be in the front part of the tombstone,”⁷⁰ whereas the ordinances passed by the committee decreed that “the edge of the inscription will be at a distance of 20 cm from the front of the tombstone [in other words from the bottom edge of the tombstone].”⁷¹ We were not dealing simply with a semantic technical matter regarding the need to set an exact uniform place;⁷² the text authorized by the committee represented much more – a quasi compromise between Zucker’s position and the opposing position of the Defense Ministry on the issue of the location of a personal inscription. Already at the beginning of the deliberations of the Subcommittee on Legislation of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee which dealt with the ordinances in August 1996, Chairman of the Subcommittee Knesset Member Zucker attempted to persuade its members that it would be proper to have the personal inscription on the pillow and summed up in the following manner: “I cannot accept these such severe restrictions imposed by the state on the slain soldier. Despite the realization that he is the slain soldier of the nation he is first and foremost the slain soldier of the family. They do not rely on the family and exercise such a degree of patronage that I find somewhat unacceptable… I find it difficult to abide by the restrictions that the state imposes on the family. We want the addition on the pillow to enjoy the same status as the declaration by the state.”⁷³ However Knesset Member Zucker was confronted by a stone wall in the form of the head of the Rehabilitation Branch and the legal advisor of the defense establishment who stood firm in their clear explanations, upon which we have already dwelt. Zucker’s colleague on the committee, Knesset Member Meir Shitrit from the Likud, also opposed providing the option of a personal inscription on the pillow. Shitrit who emphasized that he “is really not enthusiastic about the addition of the personal inscription” vigorously declared that he “opposes the addition of the inscription on the pillow. When it comes to military cemeteries one should preserve total uniformity without any deviation to the left or to the right.”⁷⁴ The third committee member, Knesset Member Yehuda Harel from the Third Way Party, did not participate in the session, but it seems

69 See above, p. 275. 70 See above, p. 275, as well as the ordinances (above, footnote 54). 71 See above, footnote 60; DMA, file L14028, protocol of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee’s Subcommittee on Legislation meeting, 8.28.1996, pp. 13-14. 72 Protocol of the Subcommittee meeting (above, footnote 71) pp. 13-14. 73 Ibid., p. 13. 74 Ibid., p. 12, the citation is from the statement of Knesset Member M. Shitrit.

280 

 The Inscription Providing Personal Expression

that Zucker estimated that he would also be opposed given the vigorous position of Knesset Member Avigdor Kahalani – a member of Harel’s party – on the issue of the personal inscription, a position that he expressed also on the Knesset rostrum in June 1994.⁷⁵ It is a plausible assumption that Zucker realized that in the committee plenum too he would not obtain a majority for his position, that was opposed to the position of Defense Minister Yitzhak Mordechai, because the members of the committee were not partisans of Zucker’s positions. He therefore decided to abandon the current fight and concentrate his effort on locating the personal inscription near the pillow, on the top portion of the tombstone: “Apparently there’s somebody who was saying that the status accorded to something that is lower is inferior… if indeed this is the argument namely that location determines status then the upper third is more appropriate.” However the representatives of the Defense Ministry insisted that the ordinances that the minister wanted to ratify determined that the personal inscription would be on the front portion of the tombstone and made it clear that should a change from the minister’s position be decided upon, they would have to resubmit the issue for renewed discussion in the Public Council before presenting it to the minister for his decision. Zucker as well as representatives of the Defense Ministry did not want to cause postponements in ratifying the ordinances. Zucker decided to abandon this fight as well, but not before the representatives of the Defense Ministry also conceded something when they agreed to somewhat modify the location of the personal inscription and move it from the edge of the tombstone upwards. And in this manner Zucker could announce: “The unanimous conclusion is: the edge of the inscription will be at a distance of some 20 cm from the lower edge of the tombstone.”⁷⁶ The second significant change from the minister’s proposal dealt with things that it was prohibited to write them in the framework of the personal inscription. 75 Knesset Protocols, 6.1.1994. 76 Protocol of the Subcommittee meeting (above, footnote 71), p. 14 – the source of the citations, and compare with YLA, protocol of the Public Council’s Permanent Committee meeting, 11.21.1996, p. 21, the complaint by Ayelet Bargur (who together with her parents demanded the opportunity to write on the pillow of her brother Ziv’s tombstone “brother to Ayelet”): “I would just like to say with regards to this proposal that was accepted, regarding the personal space at the margins of the tombstone, am I a personal inscription? I am at the margin of the tombstone?” Let us add that it is most surprising that even though Zucker himself announced the aforementioned agreement, he attempted to reopen discussion during the deliberations of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee plenum in October 1996, when he again tabled a proposal to the effect that it would be permissible to have a personal inscription on the tombstone pillow. On this see DMA, folder 1624, file 1313, Summary of the Deliberations of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee Regarding a Personal Inscription on the Tombstone, authored by G. Lederman from the office of the legal advisor to the defense establishment.

Ratifying the Ordinances Concerning the Inscriptions 

 281

The minister proposed barring from the personal inscription “matters detailing the circumstances of death exceeding that noted on the pillow of the tombstone,” although in the version authorized by the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee this limitation was left out.⁷⁷ Despite our efforts, we did not discover in the protocols of the deliberations of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee the protocol that refers to this. It is possible that the source of this initiative was the Defense Ministry itself in the course of the sessions of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee – either it did not express opposition to this when the request arose from the committee – because of increasing pressures applied by the families of the fallen to detail in the standard inscriptions the circumstances of death (despite the opposition of the Public Council).⁷⁸ Awarding the possibility to the families to add details on the circumstances of death within the framework of the personal inscription that in any case had to receive the authorization of the head of the Division for Commemorating the Soldier could provide a response to the families’ desire, and to this the Public Council was unopposed; the reverse was the case, that it viewed this to be a worthy solution.⁷⁹ The issue upon which the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee deliberations focused concerned permission to enter the names of relatives of the first degree on the pillow – sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, spouse – in addition to the names of the parents. The committee held a long discussion on this issue, especially in light of the request by the Wechselbaum and Bargur families and their supporters in the legislature. The Wechselbaum family did not agree that the possibility of fulfilling its requests should be facilitated purely within the framework of the personal inscription rather than on the pillow, and the same was true of the Bargur family, which like the Wechselbaums petitioned the High Court of Justice (this will be discussed in detail below), but this petition was rejected as the option of a personal inscription already existed.⁸⁰ From the two families’ perspective the evil decree could be averted only if the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee insisted that the defense minister establish the ordinances accordingly. From the standpoint of the families and their supporters in the legislature this was a “rearguard battle,” the last opportunity in the saga of their struggles since 1992 to secure their requests in a legal fashion. They encountered the stone wall of the defense establishment and the Public Council, which denied them this 77 Compare the wording of the ordinances above, footnote 54, to the wording of the ordinances above, footnote 60. 78 See p. 295 and onwards. 79 DFCSA, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 6.25.1997, pp. 9-15. 80 And see below in detail regarding the Bargur High Court of Justice case. See also YLA, protocol of the council’s Permanent Committee meeting, 11.21.1996.

282 

 The Inscription Providing Personal Expression

option. They earmarked the portion that was allotted to the personal inscription also for the objective of noting the names of the relatives. The members of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee were almost equally divided in their opinions, and this crossed party lines. The majority in the final result adopted the position of the defense establishment. Supporters of the majority included Knesset Members Ori Or (Labor), Binyamin Ben Eliezer (Labor), Rehavam Zeevi (Moledet), Avner Shaki (National Religious Party), Binyamin Begin (Likud) and Uzi Landau (Likud). These supported the position of the Defense Ministry that feared first and foremost an impairment to equality as a result of the addition of the names of all first degree relatives on the pillow. Not only would families with no other children be injured,⁸¹ but in the case of families with many children it would be necessary to reduce the size of the letters or increase the size of the pillow. Furthermore, “if you give in to this, the next discussion will be on the following matter: In the name of justice the family will arrive… and say: ‘In the grave alongside my son they entered the names of his brothers and sisters. I want this as well. You tell me that it doesn’t fit in? Reduce the letters.’ The discussion will be on the size of the pillow. They will insist on a double sized pillow or a 1.5 times enlargement, there is no end to this.”⁸² In general “there could arise a situation where the family will come and say the grandmother raised the child. How come only a first-degree relation? Why not the grandmother or he had an adopted brother and so on and so forth.”⁸³ These Knesset members did not suffice with the arguments of impairments to equality and seemingly technical reasons, and added additional ethical reasons regarding the importance of uniformity. Knesset Member Ori Or (a reserve major general) viewed the uniformity of the tombstones as a singular value, as he believed that such was the desire of those who fought together and fell together. He further added that uniformity provides an aura of grandeur, particularly over the years, when the families would no longer visit the graves of their relatives and these would remain alone. “We view this as a national commemorative region for generations,” Or emphasized.⁸⁴ Knesset Member Rehavam Zeevi (he too a reserve major general) wanted to preserve 81 And this is what the chairman of the committee, U. Landau, noted: “And then someone will stand opposite the tombstone who has no successor to the fallen soldier, and he will look at the nearby tombstones with longing eyes.” On this see SCA, High Court of Justice file 5843/97, protocol of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee meeting, 3.26.1997, p. 11. See also ibid., p. 24, words by Knesset Member R. Zeevi. 82 Ibid., p. 26. 83 SCA, High Court of Justice file 5843/97, protocol of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee meeting, 1.22.1997, p. 23, from the statement by Z. Gross. 84 Ibid., p. 27. See also the protocol in SCA (above, footnote 81), p. 12, words of Knesset Member O. Or.

Ratifying the Ordinances Concerning the Inscriptions 

 283

the 50 year old tradition of the uniform pillow, a tradition established by the founding fathers, especially as this is the way the British treated the hundreds of thousands of military graves scattered over the entire former empire, and they do not even note the parents on the tombstones. “We have no option but to be… statesmanlike.”⁸⁵ Knesset Member Uzi Landau embraced an ethical position in favor of uniformity that stemmed particularly from the letters that bereaved parents had written him according to which “the establishment of the uniform tombstones in the military cemeteries constitutes an expression of national recognition for the victim, an obligation that stems from this recognition and an expression to the desire to award an equal status to the fallen.”⁸⁶ In contradistinction to those opposing adding the names of first-degree relatives to the pillow, there were Knesset members including David Zucker and Yossi Sarid (Meretz), Uzi Baram (Labor) and Hanan Porat (National Religious Party) who voted in favor of the addition. Zucker, who displayed consistency throughout the entire course of his struggle, argued that his position was a direct extension of the spirit of the High Court of Justice decisions on the topic of the tombstone inscription. In his opinion, changes in legislation that were recently made reflected the processes of individualization within society and the fact that the fallen soldier belonged less to the nation and more to his family and its desires, as one could gather from the embellishments phenomenon on the tombstones and their surroundings. This is what he had to say: “I know that tombstones – definitely military tombstones – are a most faithful expression of society’s ethos, and its norms. I believe that a military tombstone constitutes an expression of an ethos, and indeed the tombstones since 1948 expressed that the fallen soldier was, first and foremost, not exclusively but most emphatically, the slain soldier of the nation. In the name of this [ethos], and in the name of the principle of equality, the tombstones were the way they were: uniform, egalitarian. This ethos also found expression… and received legal expression. In recent years – a shift in the ethos has occurred, and the fact that the fallen soldier increasingly less often appears as a slain soldier of the nation, no longer exclusively as someone who fell in defense of the borders, but he belongs evermore than was the case since 1948 to the family as well. I believe that we should persist with the policy that says: more individualized treatment of death and even of the victims.”⁸⁷ Therefore Zucker stated, “I cannot accept the so severe limitations that the state imposes on the slain soldier.”⁸⁸ Zucker believed 85 The protocol in SCA (above, footnote 81), pp. 24-26. See also ibid., pp. 30-34, statements by Knesset Members A. Shaki, B. Begin and B. Ben Eliezer. 86 Ibid., p. 21. 87 Ibid., pp. 13-14. 88 SCA, High Court of Justice file 5843/97, protocol of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee’s Subcommittee on Legislation, 8.28.1996, p. 13.

284 

 The Inscription Providing Personal Expression

that the concept “equality” not only did not necessarily connote uniformity, but the converse was true: Strict observance of uniformity hampered equality in its modern sense, in other words that which emerges from the Supreme Court of Justice decisions that meant, according to Zucker, the equal ability for each and every person to provide a personal expression for himself, the things that he feels and wants to inscribe on the pillow. “Therefore I propose: We are dealing with the matter of blood relation. This does not offer any respite, and people view it as a slight to their dignity. It is a fact, and I don’t know why, and it doesn’t really matter why. The fact is that people view it as a degradation of status, even when they descend to the bottom third, where the personal inscription is presently located… uniformity hampers the principle of equality because it does not allow me to add in equal fashion, nor to Hanan and Avner to provide a personal expression to what I feel, to what I want to write on the pillow.”⁸⁹ Sarid, Porat and Baram admitted simply that they were not guided by a theoretical concept in reaching their conclusions but by a basically human approach that obligates consideration for the family of the fallen soldier in terms of its feelings and desires within the technical limitations of the tombstone. The legal tradition and the principles underpinning uniformity and equality did not excessively perturb them. And this is how Porat explained it: “The way I see it nothing equals the desire of a family that lives with these things day after day, and sometimes the matter is simply one of life and death.”⁹⁰ Sarid added: “It is true that they say that this is national mourning and the victim of the entire nation but in practice there is both a large degree of truth and there is also a considerable degree of hyperbole. We don’t go out to the grave every day, every week or every month. Those who stand near the grave are the family and not us with all due respect to the ‘we’ and I don’t precisely know who exactly is the ‘we.’ They show up and this is what they want. They go there alone and the more the years pass they are evermore alone at the same place. So I’m to tell them what will be written there and what will not be written there?!... Yes, I view the family as more sovereign over the tombstone that anybody else.”⁹¹ Baram summed up as follows: “I would like to tell Knesset Member Ori Or… that not only do I not know… what the fallen would have said, but in my opinion it is not relevant what they would have said, because the confrontation is with those who undergo the experience of grief and these are the members of the families. The fallen are not there. The family members are the only ones who stand next to the graves and they are the ones who must deal

89 The protocol in SCA (above, footnote 81), pp. 14-50. 90 Ibid., p. 16. 91 Ibid., pp. 20-21.

Ratifying the Ordinances Concerning the Inscriptions 

 285

with a terrible reality that has all of a sudden befallen them.”⁹² As mentioned, the committee by a small majority ratified the position of the defense establishment that negated adding the names of the family members on the pillow in addition to the names of the parents. At the end of April 1997 Defense Minister Yitzhak Mordechai published the ordinances for the military cemeteries (rules for the inscription on the tombstone), 5757-1997. Here is a précis of them:

1. The uniform inscription: The uniform inscription will appear on the pillow of the tombstone and will include the following details when they are written in Hebrew (or in Arabic as the case may be): A. The IDF symbol or the symbol of the Mossad, or the symbol of the General Security Service, or the symbol of the police or the symbol of the border guards; rank; serial number; personal name; family name; previous family name, nickname – at the request of the relatives (this includes parents, spouses, siblings and children and the consent of all the relatives to a request by relatives to include the nickname, as well as other options was required, as we shall see below); the names of the father and mother; place of birth in Israel, and if the deceased was not born in Israel – his country of birth and the place of birth – as per the request of relatives (as mentioned above); Hebrew and secular date of birth – as per request of the relatives (as mentioned above), and if the deceased was not Jewish, one could note only a secular date – as per the request of a relative (as mentioned above). B. Noting the circumstances of death according to one of the following formulations in conformity with the circumstances: (1) fell in battle, noting the place of death; (2) fell in operational activity, noting the place of death; (3) fell in the line of duty while providing the option per the request of a relative (as mentioned above) to note the place of death; (4) fell during his service; (5) passed away during his service; (6) passed away. (In January 2000 the defense minister, with the authorization of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee added another option to the circumstances of death – “fell in a terror attack” noting the place of the attack.)⁹³ C. Hebrew date of the falling or death, and per the request of a relative (as mentioned above) one could add the secular date. If the deceased is not Jewish, one could upon the request of relative (as mentioned above) note only the 92 Ibid., p. 23. 93 See above, footnote 60, as well as pp. 303-304, 334.

286 

 The Inscription Providing Personal Expression

secular date; the soldier’s age at the time of his falling or death; adding the amalgam of letters ‫תנצב"ה‬, which could be omitted upon the request of a relative (as mentioned above).⁹⁴

2. The inscription providing personal expression: A. A relative (as mentioned above) interested in adding an inscription providing personal expression will submit a request on the matter to the head of the Division for Commemorating the Soldier at the Defense Ministry. B. The addition will not exceed two lines, and will be in letters whose font is the same as the letters appearing on the pillow and in a size that will not exceed the largest of them, in a manner that the edge of the inscription will be at a distance of 20 cm from the front of the tombstone. C. The addition will not include expressions insulting to the values of the State of Israel, the security of the state, the dignity of others and their sentiments and good taste, or expressions of a political nature. Likewise barred from inclusion are the military role of a fallen soldier,⁹⁵ symbols, pictures, illustrations or other similar embellishments. D. The head of the Division for Commemorating the Soldier must authorize the text of the addition for personal inscription. If he does so decide, after consultation with the Public Council for Commemorating the Soldier (or with a committee acting on its behalf) that he does not authorize the text of the requested addition, he must so inform the relative who submitted the request. His announcement must also include the reasons for the decision while also informing the relative of his right to appeal the decision (with the concurrence of the other relatives) before the appeals committee, as detailed in paragraph 5 (e) (3) to the law. The decision of the appeals committee is final. E. All these aforementioned ordinances will apply also to tombstones erected prior to the applicability of these ordinances, and the implementation of the additions will be performed by the Division for Commemorating the Soldier no later than a year from date that the request was submitted.⁹⁶

94 Ibid. 95 Subsequently the Public Council distinguished between job and profession and allowed the families to note the military profession in the framework of the personal inscription. Thus it ratified a parent’s request to write in the framework of a personal inscription the fact that his son was a “pilot.” On this see DFCSA, protocol of the Permanent Committee of the Council meeting, 5.8.2001, pp. 1-19. 96 See above, footnote 60.

Ratifying the Ordinances Concerning the Inscriptions 

 287

Fig. 40: The personal inscription in practice, Mount Herzl Military Cemetery. Source: Author’s photographs, September 2006.

288 

 The Inscription Providing Personal Expression

Fig. 41: The personal inscription in practice on older tombstones (prior to legislation), the military plot in the cemetery of Ashdot Yaakov. Source: Author’s photographs, March 2002.

Chapter 10 Internal Fissures in the Rule of Uniformity The Families Press for Substantial Changes in the Uniform Inscription and the Location of the Personal Inscription (the 90s until the Start of the Second Millennium) From the early 1990s we have witnessed the continuation and reinforcement of a trend that we observed during the 80s, in other words demands on the part of parents for changing the rules of the uniform inscription that was set by the Division for Commemorating the Soldier and the Public Council. This trend produced demands for changes in the categories of death, demands for detailing the circumstances of death, demands for adding the location of death even when we were not dealing with death in battle and noting the year of birth. With the passage of time demands arose to allow an inscription conveying personal expression on the pillow. It further emerges that even after the law beginning with 1995 allowed for an inscription conveying personal expression, the trend of accelerated demands for changes in the uniform inscription was not stymied.¹ Undoubtedly, among the factors accounting for the frequency of the demands for changes and their assertiveness one can include the following factors: the cumulative accomplishments of the bereaved families in their struggles against the division and the council, accomplishments that found expression in the decisions delivered in the Ginosar High Court of Justice case and the second Wechselbaum High Court of Justice case;² the partial agreement of the council to requests by families of soldiers who fell in the helicopter disaster and the decisions of the High Court of Justice on that issue (see below);³ compromises that were made with the Spiegel and Harnik families; the new legislation that permitted the personal inscriptions;⁴ the reinforced trends towards individualization in Israeli society; and new and unique “realities of death,” if one may employ that expression, such as those produced by the first Lebanon War, terrorist assaults that proliferated during the 90s and the beginning of the second millennium and mega training disasters (Tze’elim) and in advance of operations (the helicopter disaster). Some explained that the 1 See for example YLA, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 11.21.1996; DFCSA, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 6.25.1997, the demands made by families of the helicopter disaster victims. 2 See above, pp. 195-198, 248 and onwards. 3 See p. 314 and onwards. See also for example protocol of the Public Council meeting, 6.25.1997 (above, footnote 1), p. 10. 4 See above p. 177 and onwards.

290 

 Internal Fissures in the Rule of Uniformity

very fact that many of those who fell in the 90s found their death in such accidents and others made death more personal, as a death that was not connected to details of heroism and the wars of survival. Now every family had to contend with its personal tragedy on its own.⁵ Faced with all these factors, as we shall see below, the division and the council made a supreme effort to prevent deviations from principles and rules. We can infer this as well from the Report of the State Comptroller from 1995.⁶

Granting the Option to Add the Place of a Death Not Occurring in Battle, and the Date of Birth Given these demands and the rulings of the High Court of Justice that came in their wake and adhering to an approach that one should not contend with the bereaved families in their most difficult hour regarding insubstantial changes that were not injurious to uniformity, the Rehabilitation Branch proposed to the Council for Commemorating the Soldier already at the beginning of 1992 to make a series of changes in the personal inscription. Let us emphasize that the proposals for changes ignored the severe impairment to uniformity in comparison with the existing tombstones. One change that was proposed spoke about noting the place of death even in occurrences of “fell in the line of duty” (such as “on the Northern border,” “in the country’s South,” etc.), and this upon the request of the relatives. The change was proposed following demands by families “to inscribe the place where their sons had died despite the fact that the circumstances of death did not occur at time of battle.”⁷ During the 90s it became common practice – without the need for a parental request – to note the location of death in circumstances related to operational activity that were not connected to battle.⁸ The second proposed change, also prompted by numerous applications and requests by parents, dealt with the option of noting the slain soldiers’ date of birth as a substitute for noting the age, as has been previously decided.⁹

5 Ha’aretz Supplement, 7.2.1993, pp. 20-25. 6 The State Comptroller (1995), p. 831. 7 DMA, folder 27348, file 992, Z. Cohen to the Permanent Committee of the Public Council, 1.15.1992. 8 See the discussions in DFCSA, protocol of the Permanent Committee of the Public Council meeting, 6.21.1995. 9 See above, footnote 7.

Rejecting the Proposal to Remove the Category “Fell During His Service” 

 291

The council’s permanent committee endorsed the two proposals already during the first half of 1992. Likewise authorized was an additional Rehabilitation Branch proposal to allow interested families to engrave both the date of birth and the age of the fallen soldier upon his death, in order “to prevent the family’s opposition to ‘forgo’ noting the age of the slain soldier alongside the demand to enter his date of birth.”¹⁰

Rejecting the Proposal to Remove the Category “Fell During His Service” The most important change that the Rehabilitation Branch proposed in the beginning of 1992 was to cancel the category “fell during his time of service” and suffice with the three categories “fell in battle,” “fell in the line of duty” and “passed away during his service.” The category “fell during his time of service” was problematic from the moment it was decided upon. Originally it was intended for cases of “questionable suicides,” in other words in the event that the military investigation did not exclude the possibility, and even the most remote, that we were dealing with a weapons accident and not with suicide, and therefore one could not employ the category “passed away.” But over the years most investigation reports in cases of “presumed suicide” left open the possibility in their conclusions that we were dealing with a weapons accident. The families of the fallen clung to this doubt and voiced their opposition to the use of the category “fell during his time of service,” a category that pointed an accusing finger at their beloved; the relatives sought to rely on the doubt and upgrade it from a “questionable” weapons accident to a definite weapons accident, which conferred the inscription “fell in the line of duty.” Generally the Division for Commemorating the Soldier assented to these demands. At the behest of the Rehabilitation Branch since 1976 the cases to which this category applied were not detailed affirmatively (as was done regarding the categories “fell in battle” and “fell in the line of duty”), and it remained vague, substandard and connected with a “pejorative” death. For that reason the families were opposed when the division tried to resort to it in the cases of accidents during the period of service, accidents that were not connected to service. The use of the category “passed away” for such cases was definitely rejected, because this category covered cases of definite suicide. For that reason even in those cases they tended in the Division for Commemorating the Soldier and the Tombstone 10 DMA, folder 1604, file 1309, Z. Cohen to the chairman of the Public Council’s Permanent Committee, 4.12.1992.

292 

 Internal Fissures in the Rule of Uniformity

Subcommittee of the Council to agree with family demands and use the category “fell in the line of duty” “and in this way they themselves fostered a sharp depreciation in this category’s status, while the category “fell during his time of service” was denuded of content.¹¹ Because of the fundamental interest surrounding the proposal to delete the category “fell during his service” it reached the council’s discussion table. Opinions there were divided equally, and therefore the proposal was not ratified.¹² Supporters of the Rehabilitation Branch proposal including members of the Tombstone Subcommittee raised four principal arguments. First, in most suicide cases the investigations of the military police did sum up the report with the sentence that one could not rule out the possibility that we were dealing with a weapons accident and “if there is doubt it should work on behalf of leniency in the case… we will not wait for the military police but we will let them enjoy the benefit of the doubt, maybe it was still a weapons accident, he was thinking, he regretted it at the last minute… but he already could not manage to refrain from pressing the trigger.” Furthermore, in the Ginosar High Court of Justice case it was demonstrated that the court would always decide in favor of the families in cases where there is even a slight possibility that they were justified, and therefore there was no need to await another defeat in the High Court of Justice.¹³ Secondly, sometimes the suicides stemmed from pressures exerted by the commanders and the units. “In most cases they make them miserable during training, this is very grave, the parents notice and the boy comes home and relates that they are molesting him and after that he draws the conclusion, he can’t stand it, he commits suicide. So do we have to see the parents in such a serious state when they know that this was a factor?”¹⁴ Third, one should accommodate the parents and spare them the additional suffering caused by scrutinizing the special inscription text which differs from other fallen and reminds them all the time “that their son did something unacceptable.”¹⁵ Fourth, it is truly the case that the Tombstone Subcommittee finds it difficult to contend with pleas from the families to refrain 11 See above, footnote 7; YLA, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 6.21.1992, pp. 27-29. 12 See the deliberations and the various opinions in the protocol of the Public Council (above, footnote 11), pp. 21-42. See also DFCSA, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 8.17.1995, pp. 1-47. 13 Protocol of the Public Council meeting (above, footnote 11), pp. 35-36, from the statement by R. Vardi. 14 Ibid., p. 33, from the statement by Surkis. See also ibid., p. 34, from the words of G. Katz, and see also the statements of T.A. in DFCSA, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 3.12.1997, p. 48: “The soldiers who committed suicide, they reached that stage due to some form of distress, that in the end result was caused by the Army.” 15 Protocol of the Public Council meeting (above, footnote 11), p. 42 – the citation is from the statement by Council Chairman Y. Ben Amitai.

Rejecting the Proposal to Remove the Category “Fell During His Service” 

 293

from employing the category “fell during his service” because of its inferiority and its negative implications. Pinhas Yaron, the chairman of the Tombstone Subcommittee, related on this topic: “There was a case where it was not clear if it was really [suicide]. He [the father] asked for ‘in the line of duty,’ otherwise how could he hope to show his face in [the community] where he was residing. They came to me outside [the community] and told me: ‘You know what is happening with this person? He is taking [pills]’ and I asked him later on for the list, this pill and that pill, from this two more pills and another three pills every day and I made an agreement with that person, I told him: ‘Listen, I’m prepared to pass the decision here so it will be written in the line of duty, but you have to promise me that you’re going to throw away these pieces of paper with the pills’… we are dealing sometimes with matters that are seemingly unrelated, but I must be concerned also for the parents, for the survivors, perhaps even more than for the fallen.”¹⁶ The Tombstone Subcommittee came up with a legal argument to support its policy, because it was possible to interpret “fell in the line of duty” as “fell during his time of service, in the period that he was fulfilling his duty. Service is in the line of duty.”¹⁷ Nevertheless this argument feigned innocence and deliberately ignored the directives of the Rehabilitation Branch from 1976 that explicitly detailed the cases where one could use the category “fell in the line of duty.”¹⁸ Opponents of the proposal wanted to leave the four categories in place, and also raised four major arguments. First a re-examination of all the categories of death and perhaps even their annulment was required and one should be content with a single general definition such as “fell in the IDF” or “fell in Israel’s battles.” This in their opinion was better than the easy way of agreeing to the demands by the families or technically forgoing one of the categories. Secondly, when one included in the category “fell in the line of duty” those who legally should have been included in the category “fell during his service,” one caused a serious devaluation to the value of the first category and injury to the families of the fallen who were genuinely and by law entitled to be included in this category. Furthermore, in the future, for similar reasons, such devaluation could also occur in the category “fell in battle.” “Our point of departure should be: one, the dignity of the sons who fell, and the second, not to injure the feelings of the families and therefore I cannot see us devaluing the status of those who fell in the line of duty… what is going to happen with our wonderful boys such as pilots who went 16 Ibid., pp. 28-29, from a statement by P. Yaron. See also DFCSA, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 8.17.1995, p. 5. 17 Protocol of the Public Council meeting (above, footnote 11), p. 29, from the statement by P. Yaron. 18 See pp. 156-157, 333.

294 

 Internal Fissures in the Rule of Uniformity

to dive in Nueiba during a vacation and drowned, are we going to include them in ‘fell in the line of duty’? This is impossible. This was during their service…”¹⁹ Third, the fear of conflict with the parents is an invalid argument when it is counterpoised to the truth. “There is nothing more dangerous than this, as soon as you let it be understood that family pressure can influence you… the truth is that if you deviate from the truth whether you’re deviating because they gave you a bribe or because you’re taking pity on somebody, the case of bribery and the case of pity is a very same thing. You cannot deviate from the truth on the basis of taking pity on somebody.”²⁰ “I’m at the cemetery every day, I see scores of tombstones and I know scores of families where it is written ‘fell during their service’ and they accept it, for they know that it is true. Whoever knows the truth and refuses to accept it and applies pressure, that shouldn’t be a criterion for us… I know that the families always want to apply pressure.”²¹ Fourth, the category “fell during his service” is indeed intended for these problematic cases. The proposal to remove the category “fell during his service” was not ratified, but in practice almost no use was made of this category in cases of doubtful suicides. In these cases the division and the Tombstone Subcommittee persisted in their lenient policy and agreed to applications by the families to define those who fell in such circumstances as those who fell “in the line of duty.” This was one of the reasons for the proliferation of demands by the families to provide details on the tombstone regarding the circumstances surrounding the death of soldiers who fell in the line of duty in operational activity (that was not “battle”), in training for operational activity and in terror attacks.²² In practice the category “fell during his service” was used for those who fell in a tragic incident during their military service, but without any direct connection with their military service, such as soldiers who died as result of an accident that occurred at home during their military service.

19 Protocol of the Public Council meeting (above, footnote 11), pp. 39-40, from the statement by L.G. 20 Ibid., p. 30, from a statement by G.K.; see also the statement by D. Giladi, p. 38. 21 Ibid., pp. 39-40, from a statement by L.G. 22 See in detail DFCSA, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 8.17.1995. This caused displeasure to a few of the Public Council’s members, and they pointed to the absurdities that could result. On this see ibid. as well as DFCSA, protocol of the Public Council’s Permanent Committee meeting, 4.14.1996, pp. 37-39; ibid., protocol of the Public Council’s Permanent Committee meeting, 7.30.1996, pp. 6-10; ibid., protocol the Public Council meeting, 3.12.1997; YLA, A. Rotem to the head of the Rehabilitation Branch, 3.5.1997.

Rejecting Proposals to Add Details 

 295

Rejecting Proposals to Add Details about the Circumstances of Death “in the Line of Duty” Four prominent examples (some of them similar to each other) of demands by the parents to add the circumstances of death as an expansion of the category “fell in the line of duty” reached the council for discussion and these were the request by the Z, G, F and C families . The Z family, whose son S fell in the second Tze’elim disaster, requested at the end of 1992 the inscription “fell in the line of duty in the course of the unit’s operational drill” (the reference was to an elite unit). “Why do we want this? I think it’s very clear, we want there to be a more specific notation for the family and for his friends and for anybody visiting the grave, because fell in the line of duty is something very general. His eldest brother served in the same unit and we have a younger son who may definitely want to go in the footsteps of his brothers and we will encourage him to do so. And therefore this notation is important to us.”²³ As proof that precedents already existed for detailing the circumstances, the family pointed to inscriptions such as “fell in the line of duty in the battles in the Sinai in the Yom Kippur War.”²⁴ The council for its part did not agree to the requested text and proposed the alternative text “fell in the line of duty at Tze’elim,” in this way it took into account the decision that had been taken²⁵ that allows noting the place of death in this category as well.²⁶ In response the family decided to totally forgo the addition.²⁷ Family G was still more vociferous. Its son L fell in February 1994 as a result of a grenade blowing up in his ammo belt during training in preparation for operational activities in Lebanon. The family demanded writing on the tombstone “fell in the line of duty in a preparatory exercise for operational activity in Lebanon.” The Division for Commemorating the Soldier refused, and “upon the grave the father took an oath that within a few days he would erect a private tombstone for his son.” In the beginning of April the matter was discussed in the council’s Permanent Committee with the father’s participation. In one of the most moving meetings of the council with the bereaved parents the father recounted the life story of L and emphasized the deep importance – an actually existential importance – that the family in general and the father in particular attached to the text 23 DMA, folder 1624, file 1315, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 12.2.1992, p. 23, from a statement by A.A. 24 Ibid., p. 26, from a statement by A.A. 25 See footnote 23. 26 See protocol of the Public Council meeting (above, footnote 23), pp. 72, 77. 27 Ha’aretz Supplement, 7.2.1993, pp. 20-25.

296 

 Internal Fissures in the Rule of Uniformity

that they demanded. The father summed up his statements with the following words: For us to read this “fell during a training exercise prior to activity in Lebanon,” this is air to breathe, this is my hope, this is my air to breathe, this is everything for me, this gives me life – he fell at least on behalf of a just cause, to ensure that quiet would prevail on the Northern border… because if heaven forbid you should tell me no, I have no choice I’m going, I’m going to do this by myself, even if it will cost me my life. I’m not going to give in here. If today you tell me no, tomorrow morning there will be a tombstone, I won’t allow that during the Memorial Day for the IDF dead, when the entire country is standing at attention in memory of the IDF dead the G family will be in mourning, and there will be no tombstone pillow and memory for its son and it won’t be the one or the other. There is already no value to my life. My best son is gone and all I want are these lines, black as it can be, written in black ink and that is how it should be written and I ask for consideration and by approving this and you will have awarded air to my soul, a little respite and a modicum of consolation to the family… now I ask the state to make me a donation by writing on the tombstone what my son merits, this is the compensation that I want the country to allow me.

L’s brother added: “We are in the end result human beings. I know that everybody has feelings and soul, the problem is to avoid total insensitivity, but to accommodate and help. A totally formalistic behavior of many years can be a foundation stone for a long time, but doesn’t do anybody any good. One should open up and see the other points of view… I don’t intend to preach to anybody, but I simply grasped that things are locked from within. And if things are locked from within, we can easily foresee the response and that is a great pity.” From reading the protocol it is hard not to sense the psychological pressure that the council members were under. In their hearts they yearned to help the family for which they felt particular empathy, but any help involved damaging principles and rules that the council had established and setting new precedents. All this took place in a most problematic period from the standpoint of the council, when its decisions on similar issues were being elucidated at the High Court of Justice (the first Wechselbaum case).²⁸ Likewise the G family came equipped with photographs of tombstones that demonstrated the existence of deviations. Council member M. Shmuelevitz provided instructive expression as to the intensity of the dilemma: I am tormented, I want, I would really want these people to leave here with the feeling that the state helped them. I don’t know how we can do so, if we are permitted to, how can we help them in this? The difference is that nobody can see the repercussions; the moment that we break down the fence, the value of the military cemetery will be lost. The value in

28 See above, p. 201 and onwards.

Rejecting Proposals to Add Details 

 297

the military cemetery is that the tombstones are uniform, the inscriptions are uniform. So there are small deviations. Here they’ll come in another week or in another month, they’ll come to us, another family will arrive, it will bring us a photograph and say: look, you have already broken down the barriers. Why did you give in to them and not to us? And we’re going to stand with mouth agape. Nevertheless, I believe that there is a solution. I don’t know how. I propose that we should discuss later on what we can propose. I would very much want that today, at this very minute, the G family will depart from here with a positive decision but I don’t think we can do so.

Two proposals for a solution that were raised by the council members dealt with allowing the family to put a marble plaque near the tombstone and the requested addition would be inscribed on it, or allowing them to write the inscription not on the pillow but on the tombstone. These were farreaching proposals, opposed to the council’s tradition (although a similar precedent existed in the case of Guber),²⁹ and what was even more surprising is that they were actually proposed by the veteran council members. These proposals were dropped from the agenda, but it is understandable that they were raised for discussion in light of the vast psychological pressure that these members were under and given the background of Shula Melet’s suicide³⁰ that took place at this time (and in the words of one of the members in the discussion: “I tell you, the case of Melet is pursuing us, although in the case of Melet we were lucky that they didn’t remove the tombstone before she committed suicide, because otherwise she would’ve written in her will, that this is what broke her back and she decided to commit suicide. It is a dead certainty that they would have written this and then we would’ve been under attack from all corners of the political spectrum”). Maybe the members felt apprehensive about entering a maelstrom of High Court of Justice petitions if no solution could be found for the plight of the G family, given the first Wechselbaum High Court of Justice case that was being adjudicated at that time and this accounted for the proposals.³¹ The deliberations concluded with a council decision to reject the request but the rejection was softened by a promise to resume deliberation on the application once the hearing on the Wechselbaum suit had concluded, since given the similarity between the two petitions the council was barred from reaching a final decision.³² At the council’s advice a compromise was reached with the G family. 29 See above, p. 148. 30 See pp. 387-388. 31 DFCSA, protocol of the Public Council’s Permanent Committee meeting, 4.4.1994 – the source of all the citations. 32 In our opinion it is hard to say that in the Wechselbaum High Court of Justice case the desire to avoid adopting a final decision was a factor because we were dealing with two different topics

298 

 Internal Fissures in the Rule of Uniformity

Under the compromise and as an interim solution pending the High Court of Justice ruling, a pillow would be installed and upon it the inscription text would read “fell in the line of duty on the Northern border.”³³ When the final decision was taken in the Wechselbaum High Court of Justice case L’s father, SG, returned to meet with the council. The text that he requested this time was slightly different from the preceding one: “Fell on the Northern border in the course of a training exercise prior to operational activity in Lebanon.” The father did not insist that the inscription should be on the pillow, but his determination to be allowed this text had not changed. He was most frustrated when the council made it clear to him that the entire issue of the uniform personal inscription was in the process of legislation (as a result of a final decision on the Wechselbaum matter), and therefore it was stymied from changing its previous decision. Nevertheless the council proposed approaching the legal advisor to the Defense Ministry and receiving her assent to allow the requested inscription within the framework of the personal inscription although the legislative process had not concluded.³⁴ Indeed, the legal advisor supported the proposal. She believed that even though the legislative process in its second and third reading had not yet concluded, “the ruling that was made [in other words the High Court of Justice ruling] regarding the option of a personal inscription is already binding and it would be proper to act according to it within the framework of rules ratified by the Public Council and by the defense minister” – including the option granted the family for appealing to the defense minister should the head of the Division for Commemorating the Soldier turn down the request for the personal inscription text.³⁵ A request similar to the G family’s request also reached the council’s table in April 1994 – but as opposed to its predecessors concluded with the family’s agreement. This was the request by the F family from Hadera, whose son Y fell on the border fence in the North. This family as well felt that it could not suffice with the text “fell in the line of duty” and insisted on the text “fell during operational activity on the Lebanon border.” This is how the father presented his arguments:

on the issue of the inscription. And indeed, one member of the council did not hesitate to speculate about the reason for the delay that “it’s a bit fishy, it’s a bit troublesome.” On this see above, footnote 31. 33 The State Ombudsman (1995), pp. 32-34. And see ibid. that the ombudsman in practice justified the council’s decision to delay its final decision because of the similarity to the issue of Wechselbaum, which was still pending. 34 YLA, protocol of the Public Council’s Permanent Committee meeting, 4.14.1996. 35 DMA, file L14028, Z. Gross to N. Schayek, 4.16.1996.

Rejecting Proposals to Add Details 

 299

He really fell on the border fence and when I asked his unit commander how it happened, why didn’t you make haste, why did you evacuate him improperly… then he said, listen there was an enemy penetration and we were engaged in an activity under time [pressure]. And here it is written that the child fell in the line of duty. Hats off to him he didn’t fall in the Tel Aviv military compound or in the city of Hadera on a motorcycle, he was on operational activity. I want it to be noted that he fell in operational activity along the border fence or in Lebanon or something of the sort and not merely on operational activity and it’s very important… he was on operational duty… along the fence… some of his comrades were in Taibe, in Lebanon and some they sent along the border fence… true they did not fire at him but he was on a patrol. He didn’t travel to do shopping for his mother… it didn’t happen in the Tel Aviv military compound, this didn’t occur in Hadera, this wasn’t a traffic accident, this came about in the process of carrying something out, under time pressure… forgive me… next to him another boy is buried… who died three months previously. He was a welder in the military camp. With all due respects this is not the same situation as Y.… a similar case of falling in the line of duty.

The council members explained that they cannot deviate from the four standard texts. “We can’t note every case. You can’t do the very opposite of this. Your son’s fate was to fall on operational duty there, the other son fell when his unit escaped from someplace. The third boy was working, and did he choose to work at the PX? Only [the comedian] Shaike Ophir makes jokes about the son that works in the PX, the people go there, everybody does his job and in most cases, it’s not precisely the job that he wanted… ‘in the line of duty’ embraces the activity that he [Y] was involved with… there is somebody on intelligence activity and he was hit by a vehicle or something of that sort or any sort of other activity and therefore one does not customarily detail the type of activity… what can be written is: ‘fell in the line of duty on the Northern border’ and then they will understand that it wasn’t in the Tel Aviv military compound.” But this did not satisfy the father. He wanted people to know where his son fell and for what purpose, whereas the council as was its practice sought to preserve uniformity. Only in the end was the father persuaded to accept the proposal “fell in the line of duty on the Northern border,” and that is after one of the council members put it to him that from the notation “border fence” one could infer things that were quite far removed from what the father was interested in getting across: “I live in the town of Omer near Beersheba. We also have a security fence. So what? Someone has to grasp and realize that a security fence is something on the border? This does not denote anything…”³⁶ From the 90s the cases of deaths that were the results of terrorist attacks proliferated and families requested noting on the tombstone that deaths came as a 36 Protocol of the Public Council’s Permanent Committee meeting (above, footnote 31) – the source of all the citations.

300 

 Internal Fissures in the Rule of Uniformity

result of a terror attack. This was the case of the C family whose son fell in 1995 in a terrorist attack at Kfar Darom, and the text of the inscription that it requested was “fell in the line of duty in the hostile terror attack on Kfar Darom.” The council members were aware that one was not dealing with a combat situation, but the text “fell in the line of duty” was a formulation that severely minimized the case at hand. Nevertheless it was discernible in the course of discussions that the council did not want to become ensnared in attempts to formulate a new category for such cases. It preferred to rely on the formulation that was established for those who fell in the terror attack at Beit Lid, where they inscribed “fell in the line of duty at Beit Lid Junction,” and therefore turned down the request and informed the family that it could authorize “‘fell in the line of duty at Kfar Darom’ without the additions requested by the family.”³⁷ However in one of the council sessions the head of the Division for Commemorating the Soldier reported that in terrorist attacks the text “fell in battle” was entered,³⁸ and from there one could infer that during the 90s there was no clear and uniform policy regarding cases of terror attacks. It is possible that the problematic nature, as we shall see below, was one of the factors that in the end result prompted an amendment to the law in 2000 that added a separate category for a terrorist attack.

Turning Down Requests by Relatives to Attach an Ethical Value to Death and Its Circumstances within the Category “Fell In Battle” Even in cases of death in battle the council turned down requests by relatives to incorporate a formula that attached an ethical value to the death and its circumstances – a continuation of its long-standing policy. Such was the case of the K family whose son C fell in battle in Lebanon on March 1995. The mother, who defined herself as part of the consensus concerning the Lebanon war, was perturbed – and justifiably so – that in the future it would be totally forgotten that the war in Lebanon was intended to protect the Northern communities. The tombstone would attest to this: “This matter is part of the consensus that our soldiers must sit in Lebanon in order to preserve the Northern communities. But it still appears that we are very soon heading for peace and there were all sorts of reservations about Lebanon. I have no such reservations about what our soldiers are doing in Lebanon, but I think that in another 10 to 20 years it won’t be so clear 37 DFCSA, protocol of the Public Council’s Permanent Committee meeting, 6.21.1995, pp. 33-37 – the source of all the citations. 38 DFCSA, protocol of the Public Council’s Permanent Committee meeting, 7.30.1996, pp. 6-10.

Turning Down Requests 

 301

to people why our soldiers must die in Lebanon. Therefore what I requested is that it should be written on the tombstone ‘fell in battle in Lebanon in defense of the Northern communities.’”³⁹ This text was a combination of two texts that were employed previously: the one, “Fell in battle in Lebanon” that was previously set for those who fell in battle in Lebanon, and the second, that was also utilized, was “fell in battle in defense of the Northern communities.”⁴⁰ The mother wanted to “make clear [especially to the young people visiting the grave on Memorial Day] that the sojourn in Lebanon was for the purpose of defending the Northern communities,” and therefore she requested the combination of the two texts. The Division for Commemorating the Soldier denied her request, and pending clarification of the matter in the council the family agreed to inscribe on the tombstone “fell in battle in Lebanon.”⁴¹

Fig. 42: The inscription “Fell in battle in defense of the Northern communities,” the military cemetery in Haifa. Source: Author’s photographs, March 2002.

39 See above, footnote 37, p. 8, from the statement by T. Lang. 40 See above, p. 185. 41 See above, footnote 37, p. 11 – the source of all the citations. A precedent for the inscription “in Defense of the Northern communities” was set when Lt. Col. Shmuel Adiv fell while pursuing terrorists on the security fence in the north, on Israel’s border and not in Lebanon, and for this purpose the Division for Commemorating the Soldier authorized the inscription “in Defense of the Northern communities.” On this see ibid.

302 

 Internal Fissures in the Rule of Uniformity

Most council members opposed the request for a number of reasons that were already noted above as well as for the following reasons: This would impair uniformity and equality and would especially offend those who fell in the Peace for Galilee Operation and in the Lebanon war and no notation appeared on their tombstones about defense of the Northern communities, “and therefore they died just for the heck of it!?”; the precedent that would be created, for “we will be inviting the families of the fallen including Peace for Galilee Operation to solicit a new text.” In retrospect council members displayed their aversion to the practice (as set previously by the division) of an ethically weighted inscription “…in defense of the Northern communities,” since “we are the Israel Defense Forces… There’s no soldier among us who dies in defense of Finland… the tie-in is established by dint of the very fact that there is an IDF sign there and he is part of the Israel Defense Forces… in effect one must write the same for all IDF soldiers who fell in defense of their homeland, both for those who fell in Lebanon as well the ones in Tel Aviv, in the Sinai and all the other places… every soldier who fell… fell in defense of the homeland. Is the North more important to me than the Jordan Rift or Judea and Samaria? This is also dear to me. They do not call the IDF the Israel Palmach Army or the Freedom Fighters of Israel Army or the Irgun Army, but the Israel Defense Forces. This was the basis of the entire matter, every military activity and any military service is intended for the purpose of defending the State of Israel.”⁴²

Turning Down a Request to Add the Title “Doctor” As in the past, in the 90s as well at least on one occasion a request to add the title of doctor for a military physician who died reached the council’s table. On the basis of positions that it had adopted on similar requests the council turned down the request this time as well.⁴³

42 Ibid., pp. 8-20 – the source of all the citations. 43 See in detail above, pp. 147-148. In the current discussion, one member summarized the arguments that were provided in the past for the decision by saying “for one person the title doctor is important and the second one was an illustrious pupil and this was important as well.” On this see above, footnote 38, p. 4, from a statement by L.G. The entire discussion is located there, pp. 2-6.

Rejecting Requests to Add New Categories of Death 

 303

Rejecting Requests to Add New Categories of Death and Ratification of the Category “Fell in a Terror Attack” The Army took notice of the reservations, to say the least, that the families sensed during the 90s towards the category “fell in the line of duty,” a category whose use was greatly expanded.⁴⁴ The Army’s liaison branch with the families received many applications from bereaved families “for an inscription that provided somewhat more detail about the circumstances surrounding their beloved’s death,”⁴⁵ after they had apparently been rejected by the division and the council. The text on the tombstones of those falling in terror attacks was problematic. As we became aware above, there were those cases defined as “fell in the line of duty” and others defined as “fell in battle,” whereas the families wanted the notation of death as a result of “a terror attack,” perhaps because this was “as if he was killed in battle. Hence it is of no importance if this was a battlefield in some sort of place or if this was the battle of our enemy joined with us within a city on a specific street” – as one of the council members attempted to explain.⁴⁶ The Public Ombudsman also requested the council to consider adding the category of “fell in a terror attack.”⁴⁷ For that reason the Army requested from the Rehabilitation Branch and from the council at the beginning of 1997 to add two new categories: “killed in operational activity” while adding the name of the place and “killed in a terror attack” while adding the name of the place.⁴⁸ At the same time families forwarded new applications seeking to add the words “in operational activity” to the tombs of their relatives that were previously defined as “fell in the line of duty.” However all these applications were submitted to the council for deliberation a few weeks after the publication of the new ordinances (April 1997) by the minister and the ratification of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, ordinances that inter alia established six categories of death within the framework of the uniform inscription on the pillow.⁴⁹ Most council members relied on this argument in their decision to effectively reject these applications, including those by the Army. There were some members who believed that one should accommodate 44 This according to the head of the Rehabilitation Branch himself, O. Chico, in the course of the meeting of the Public Council. On this see DFCSA, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 3.12.1997, p. 48. 45 YLA, A. Rotem to the head of the Rehabilitation Branch, 3.5.1997. See also protocol of the Public Council’s Permanent Committee meeting (above, footnote 31). 46 Protocol of the Public Council’s Permanent Committee meeting (above, footnote 38), p. 8. 47 Ibid., p. 7. 48 See the letter by A. Rotem (above, footnote 45). 49 See above, pp. 285-286.

304 

 Internal Fissures in the Rule of Uniformity

the families and examine each request on its merits – and in their words: “I think we have to strike a balance and accommodate the aspirations of the families… by finding a way of calming the parents, inducing them to reconcile themselves with what’s written on the tombstone, that they should understand it and accept it and thus avoid a conflict… a High Court of Justice case and so forth” – but most of their fellow members on the council feared impairment to uniformity and equality. Furthermore, they were at the time under the difficult pressure of applications by the families of those who perished in the helicopter disaster⁵⁰ and feared that there would be no end to applications regarding categories of death and their circumstances and endless requests for new categories would surface: “You want to accommodate the parents, you can never accommodate everybody… we know that. For two Jews there are three opinions...” Therefore they preferred to rely on the formal legalistic arguments that we mentioned and they emphasized that the families’ aspirations could find their fulfillment within the framework of the personal inscription.⁵¹ We should add that in January 2000 a response was also provided to the request of noting the circumstances of death in a terrorist attack, as in the framework of an ordinance enacted by Defense Minister Ehud Barak the category “fell in a terror attack” was added noting the place of death, and thus the categories of death had now increased to seven.⁵²

Rejecting the Request to Add Relatives to the Tombstone Pillow and Meeting the Test of the High Court of Justice A request similar to the one proposed by the Wechselbaum family in 1992 was tabled before the Division for Commemorating the Soldier by the Bargur family whose son Captain Ziv Bargur, a paratroop commander, fell in the line of duty in May 1996. The family requested allowing the addition “brother to Ayelet” (as a continuation to the inscription “son of Sarit and Yona”) on the pillow of Ziv’s tombstone. This was Ayelet’s wish, as described by her father Yona Bargur: “We want to add ‘brother to Ayelet’ on the pillow… why is it so important to us? I would 50 See p. 314 onwards. 51 See in detail DFCSA, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 6.25.1997, pp. 9-15 – the source of all the citations. See also YLA, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 7.31.1997, pp. 33-35. Nonetheless it is clear that the council ignored the fact that the new regulations from April 1997 did add according to the members of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee a new category, “fell on operational activity.” On this see above, p. 285, and DMA, file L20571, Z. Gross to H. Yisraeli, 4.1.1997, and especially paragraph 3. 52 Official Documents: Ordinance Compendium, 6017, 1.27.2000, p. 678; Takdin CD, regulations on military cemeteries 1997, final amendment 1.27.2000, paragraph 2 (6) (c1).

Rejecting the Request to Add Relatives to the Tombstone Pillow 

 305

say the following sentence: This is Ayelet’s wish. Decades after we, Sarit and I, will be buried in the ground… she will continue to bear the pain of the loss of a beloved, dear and revered brother. Is she not entitled to have her name inscribed alongside him forever like lovers? Such is the degree of importance.”⁵³ Furthermore, “‘brother to Ayelet’ is Ziv’s identity card, the identity card’s place is on the pillow, it doesn’t belong at the feet.”⁵⁴ Ayelet added that “I feel no sense of affinity there… they snatched my brother from me from the very first day when they posted the mourning notice ‘Ziv Bargur son of Yona and Sarit.’”⁵⁵ The Division for Commemorating the Soldier, sustained by the vigorous position of the council against adding the personal inscription to the pillow, rejected the request.⁵⁶ This request as we have noted was almost identical to the one made by the Wechselbaum family, that ultimately resulted in an amendment to the Law of Military Cemeteries to allow an inscription conveying personal expression and exclusively in this framework one was allowed to note the names of family other than parents. We have already become acquainted with the main reasons in the previous chapters of our work: first and foremost, the impairment to equality that would be created as families with many children who would seek to inscribe the names of all the siblings would not be able to do so due to space limitations on the tombstone, as well as injury to the sentiments of parents who did not have additional children whose names could be inscribed on the pillow. These two arguments were described by council member TD: “When my son was killed in the First Tze’elim Disaster a boy named B was killed… B’s family had 10 children, imagine that the family would arrive later and say we also want this… it would be necessary to erect not a pillow but a sheet… I gave birth to a daughter… but my husband has no one else and this is most significant… my husband is not the first bereaved father who has nothing remaining to him, there are many like him. They will come to the cemetery… he will read he has a daughter and son yet another daughter and son, something remained to him, what has remained for me?... for parents for whom nothing has remained, how are they to feel?”⁵⁷ Alongside this argument the arguments of impairment to uniformity remained unwavering: “There is something to the fact that all the pillows are equal, both for a general, a sergeant and for a simple soldier… we must also consider how a military cemetery will look, as opposed to a civilian cemetery where everybody builds towers and 53 YLA, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 11.21.1996, p. 5, from the statement by Y. Bargur. 54 Ibid., p. 14, from the statement by Y. Bargur. 55 Ibid., pp. 9-10, from a statement by A. Bargur. 56 See also YLA, Y. Mordechai to Y. Bargur, 10.24.1996. 57 Protocol of the Public Council meeting (above, footnote 53), pp. 16-17, from the statement by T.D.

306 

 Internal Fissures in the Rule of Uniformity

adds cranes and all and sundry other things… imagine for yourselves that they would flout the norms according to the personal sentiment towards every act of bereavement in our country, where would we get to.”⁵⁸ After its petition had been rejected the Bargur family turned to the High Court of Justice relying on the ruling that was handed down in the second Wechselbaum High Court of Justice case.⁵⁹ This was a short while after the final ratification in May 1996 of the amendment to the Law of Military Cemeteries that allowed a personal inscription, but prior to the authorization of the ordinances to the law that established that the inscription conveying personal expression would only be on the front of the tombstone and not on the pillow. The current defense minister, Yitzhak Mordechai, was ready to allow the addition on the lower part of the tombstone, even prior to the ratification of the ordinances, but this was unacceptable to the Bargur family which insisted that the addition “brother to Ayelet” would be inscribed on the pillow.⁶⁰ The representative of the Bargur family, Attorney Yaakov Neeman, argued that with the ratification of the amendment to the law from 1996 until the publication of new ordinances, as obligated by the amendment, there was no longer any validity to ordinances relating to the personal inscription that had been enacted by the Defense Ministry in 1995 after the publication of the High Court of Justice decision in the second Wechselbaum case, including the determination that the personal inscription would not be on the pillow.⁶¹ He further argued that preventing the addition of two words to the inscription on the pillow constituted extreme lack of plausibility and severe injury to the dignity of the fallen soldier and his family that was being committed without any proportionality, and transgressed by failing to take into account all the pertinent considerations.⁶² Neeman, however, who in the second Wechselbaum High Court of Justice case did not oppose having the personal inscription outside the pillow, now found it difficult to persuade the court that the place for the personal inscription in the case at hand must be particularly on the pillow. In the litany of his arguments he reiterated the argument that the uniformity in the military cemeteries was not being observed in practice and resorted to an a fortiori argument from the Ginosar High Court of Justice ruling that allowed entering the secular date of death on

58 Ibid., pp. 18-20, from the statements by B.D. and L.T. 59 See above, p. 248 and onwards. 60 SCA, High Court of Justice file 3807/96, Y. Neeman (the attorney for the Bargur family) to Z. Gross, 5.26.1996. 61 Ibid., petition for issuing an Order Nisi, an absolute order, and urgent deliberation on the petition, 5.28.1996, pp. 1-6. 62 Ibid., p. 5.

Rejecting the Request to Add Relatives to the Tombstone Pillow 

 307

the pillow: “The Ginosar ruling is a fortiori applicable to our case. If the addition of a secular date whose emotional importance (objective and subjective) is of incomparably lesser importance than the addition being requested in our case, and the wish of the relatives was extended preference over the principle of uniformity, then a fortiori it is just to give preference to the relatives’ desire by adding such a substantial and emotionally laden detail such as the family link between a brother and a sister.”⁶³ But as opposed to the second Wechselbaum High Court of Justice case,⁶⁴ the petition to the High Court of Justice did not present the Defense Ministry (that this time displayed a united front) and the Justice Ministry with major difficulty. They demonstrated that in the previous High Court of Justice rulings the High Court of Justice panel did not oppose separating the personal inscription from the pillow, and even further it was the court that had recommended it to a large extent, and in any case the location of the personal inscription was left to the discretion of the defense minister. The amendments to the law from 1996 also established that the rules of the uniform inscription and its location would be determined by the defense minister in ordinances ratified by the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee. Pending Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee ratification of the new ordinances deriving from the amendment to the law, the ordinances that were adopted after the second Wechselbaum High Court of Justice case were in effect – and as these established in light of weighty arguments (already detailed) that the personal inscription should not be on the pillow – the petition must be rejected.⁶⁵ The panel sitting in judgment – Justices Gavriel Bach, Mishael Cheshin and Yitzhak Zamir – had before them (in the framework of the state’s reply) those portions from the decisions on the Wechselbaum family’s petitions that dealt with the issue of the personal addition. As may be recalled, Justice Barak had noted at the time that there is no necessity for the inscription (in the case of the Wechselbaum family) to be located on the pillow and the defense minister could assign the proper place for the personal inscription. Justice Shlomo Levin had also previously ruled in the decision on granting the Wechselbaum family an additional hearing that “I would not have been inclined to intervene in this petition had the defense minister elected to provide expression to the sentiments of the family in another manner than that requested by the petitioners. As was stated in the minority opinion in the first hearing, one can maintain proper balance between conflicting principles by various methods, and thus provide some form of expres63 Ibid., p. 8, paragraph 6.1. 64 See above, p. 231 onwards. 65 SCA, High Court of Justice file 3807/96, announcement by the State Attorney General, 5.31.1996, pp. 1-10.

308 

 Internal Fissures in the Rule of Uniformity

sion to the sentiments of the family: on the tombstone, on its margins or alongside it, and the adjudication between these methods lies in the hands of the defense minister.”⁶⁶ These conclusions together with the fact that drafts of the ordinances prepared by the defense minister in the wake of the amendments to the Law of Military Cemeteries were submitted for the court’s study; the agreement by the defense establishment that the family’s request could be fulfilled if the final text of the ordinances (ratified by the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee) would allow noting relatives on the pillow; as well as the agreement of the defense establishment to allow a suitable place on the tombstone in such an event – all induced the High Court of Justice panel in the beginning of June 1996 to reject the petition and in practice adopt the ordinances drawn up by the minister, and this even before their final ratification by the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee. Nonetheless the justices left the door open before the Bargur family to resubmit their petition on the matter after promulgation of the ordinances “in order to examine the validity and legality of the ordinances of the minister after they had been promulgated.”⁶⁷ The Bargur family did not accept the decree and made every effort to change it. The father approached members of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee in emotional letters with the intention of securing a change to the ordinances so that the family’s request would elicit a positive answer. The applications of the Bargur family to the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee induced the committee as may be recalled to devote a large portion of its deliberations to the issue of whether to allow the notation of relatives of the first degree (in addition to the parents) on the tombstone. In one of the letters the father, Yona Bargur, wrote the following comments, and because of their importance and power we will cite them verbatim. Particularly at the last minute, before tomorrow’s deliberations in the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee on the issue of the inscription on the tombstones of IDF dead, I’m turning to you once more as a bereaved father whose son Ziv, a company commander in the paratroops, died in the line of duty, half a year ago, to prevent the promulgation of ordinances for inscription on the tombstones of IDF dead that do not allow the addition of relatives from the first degree on the pillow… why is it so important to us? First of all, because it is the desire of my daughter Ayelet, Ziv’s sister. Decades after we his parents will be buried in the ground, and perhaps we will meet Ziv in other worlds, she will continue bearing the pain over the loss of a dear, beloved and revered brother. Is it not her right to have her 66 Ibid., pp. 2-3 – the source of the citations. 67 DFCSA, N. Schayek to members of the Public Council, 6.12.1996, appended is the court decision regarding Bargur – that is also the source of the citation. The decision is located also in SCA (above, footnote 60).

Rejecting the Request to Add Relatives to the Tombstone Pillow 

 309

name inscribed in perpetuity alongside of him just like the parents? Secondly – I do not understand the depths of such brutal and violent behavior. What all in all are we asking for? Do we seek to write something provocative against the IDF such as “a war of deceit”?! All in all we want to note alongside the name of the parents the name of his sister Ayelet. Whoever doesn’t want to, doesn’t have to add it! Third, we view this as a converse, we could not accept the unfeeling approach of evil hearted and narrow minded officials who utilize the entire defense establishment apparatus in order to trample a bereaved father between the seven days of mourning and the 30 days of mourning. There is no reason in the world that the director of the Division for Commemoration… should tell us four days before the 30 day memorial that because we submitted a High Court of Justice petition we won’t have a tombstone at all. Can’t you compromise and add the name of Ayelet on the additional stone that permits personal expression? Absolutely not! Compromise should be done between antagonists, between opposite camps. It is not by choice that we are one camp of bereaved parents – so let them allow us to behave in mourning according to our choice. I’m not dictating to anybody how to behave, so let them not dictate to us! And as regards the additional personal expression, I have already dwelled at length on this aspect in my previous letter, but I’ll allow myself to remind you that there is nothing in noting the name of Ayelet that constitutes a personal expression, similar to adding a verse from the Psalms or a line from a poem. “Brother to Ayelet” is part of Ziv’s identity card and the place of an identity card is on the pillow and only on the pillow. And if there are seven brothers and sisters and three children and a wife, then there won’t be any room?! Whoever makes such an argument already conceded our moral argument! Only the technical problem remains. Admit the principle as part of the ordinances and a technical solution to the problem will be discovered. There is no rainbow over the horizon for us. Our world has been destroyed. What are we asking? A bit of mercy. A bit of understanding and consideration – there is no glory to be found in this struggle only prolonged and interminable pain.⁶⁸

But this letter as well did not bring about change. We saw that by a narrow majority the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee rejected the proposals to allow in the ordinances noting relatives of the first degree on the pillow. According to the ordinances ratified in the committee in May 1997 the addition “brother to Ayelet” was possible only within the framework of the personal inscription at the front of the tombstone. The Bargur family again petitioned the High Court of Justice requesting that the High Court of Justice instruct that the ordinances be amended in order to permit entering on a soldier’s tombstone pillow in a military cemetery the names of first-degree relatives, in addition to his parents. The basic argument behind the petition was made again: The preservation of human dignity requires respecting the families’ wish and sentiments.⁶⁹ Furthermore, as the Bargur family had argued previously, “since the first-degree relatives of the deceased are those 68 SCA, High Court of Justice file 5843/97, Y. Bargur to members of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, 10.27.1996. Also see ibid., Y. Bargur to Y. Mordechai, 12.4.1996. 69 Ibid., petition to grant an Order Nisi, 10.6.1997 (and this time the petition was submitted by Attorney A. Lev from the office of Attorney A. Zichroni), pp. 1-8.

310 

 Internal Fissures in the Rule of Uniformity

who will visit his grave as the years go by and it is the way of nature that the brother or sister of the dead soldier, his son and wife or his descendants will visit the grave for many years more than his parents, then the implementation of the directives of human dignity and liberty must allow entering the names of those first-degree relatives on the pillow of the tombstone as part of the ‘ID card of the dead soldier.’”⁷⁰ The Bargur family also argued that it is not plausible that personal details such as rank, place of birth, nickname, etc., do appear on the pillow, because they are considered part of a “uniform inscription,” whereas the names of the siblings are considered “personal inscription.” The very distinction in the ordinances Between the names of the parents of the deceased that were found fitting to be included in the uniform inscription and the names of his other close family members is on the face of it implausible. The concept “inscription conveying personal expression” [as stated in the law and to which the ordinances referred to]… should be interpreted purely as a statement exalting the special qualities that the deceased was graced with, or that conveys the family’s pain and sense of loss. This is not the case with the names of family members and their link to the deceased. These... are not “personal expression” at all, but part of the personal-family identity of the deceased. The relation to the deceased of family members, such as his spouse, descendents, brothers and sisters is no lesser a relation than father and mother… and in the distinction between the parents on one hand and other relatives on the other, there is discrimination against the other family members and even discrimination against the will of the deceased… in order to preserve the framework of uniformity and equality, under which the tombstones were shaped, it suffices to preserve the uniform structure of the tombstones and to limit the inscription and size of the letters on the pillow.⁷¹

On the basis of photographs from the national military cemetery in Arlington, in Washington D.C., the family tried to contend that there as well one can note the names of first degree relatives other than parents of the deceased on the pillow of the tombstone without impinging on the principles of uniformity and equality.⁷² However, due to the difference between the models of military tombstones in Israel and those in the United States doubt arises if one can at all speak about any “pillow” in the model of American tombstones.

70 Ibid., the main part of the arguments on behalf of the petitioners, 6.1.1998, p. 3, paragraph 7. See also ibid., a list of 41 bereaved families who voiced their support for the Bargur family’s demand and also asked to add the names of their family members of the first degree who were not parents to the pillow. 71 Takdin CD, High Court of Justice Decision 5843/97 – the source of all the citations. See also in detail the arguments in favor of a petition above, footnote 69. 72 See the photographs in SCA, High Court of Justice file 5843/97.

Rejecting the Request to Add Relatives to the Tombstone Pillow 

 311

The special status of the Public Council in the minister’s decision-making process – although the powers of decision themselves were vested only in the minister – was also assailed in the petition: “The minister does not even bother at all explaining why he prefers the position of the council, which is only an advisory body, over of the position of the petitioners, who are after all kinsmen of the deceased who are to visit his grave – the only thing that he does is to note laconically that he prefers the position of the council… the conclusion that must be derived… is that the minister has in fact transferred the power of decision in this sensitive issue to the [council] that is no more than an advisory body.”⁷³ The response of the state to this petition was based on a number of arguments. First, there were all those arguments for separation between the personal inscription and the uniform inscription that the defense establishment and the Public Council clung to and which we have already detailed above. Secondly, in Jewish tradition and in the tradition of cemeteries in Israel there is a distinction between the parents of the deceased and the other relatives of the first degree, especially as the parents constitute part of the person’s identity in life as well, for every person has parents who brought him into this world and only in their regard do the religious sources decree “honor thy father and thy mother.” In contradistinction, not every deceased had brothers and sisters, a husband or wife or children.⁷⁴ Therefore, there are those who would wish to add the names of siblings to the tombstone and those who would not. In such a manner the addition of the names of family members (in addition to the parents) on the pillow would challenge uniformity. Third, in the case of the large number of brothers and sisters it would not be possible to write the names of all of them on the pillow, something that would impair equality. Fourth, “the importance of siblings in the life of a soldier who was killed is to a large extent part of his private identity and in this manner he is special and different from other soldiers who were killed in battle. Therefore the place for expressing this tie… is in the part of a personal expression.”⁷⁵ The state did not try to contend with the arguments of the prevalence of lack of uniformity that actually existed in the cemeteries, because it was difficult to contend with facts documented in photographs from the cemeteries. Nevertheless, it rejected the arguments of the Bargur family regarding a deviation in the uniformity of the inscription on the tombstones of those who fell in the helicopter disaster, because “the text that was authorized for writing on the tombstones of 73 See above, footnote 69, p. 5, paragraphs 33-34. 74 See SCA, High Court of Justice file 5843/97, response affidavit, 12.19.1997, where the responses are detailed. 75 Ibid.

312 

 Internal Fissures in the Rule of Uniformity

the soldiers killed in the helicopter disaster [‘fell in the line of duty on the way to operational activity in south Lebanon’] was intended to guarantee uniformity of what was noted among many slain soldiers, and the addition ‘on the way to operational activity in south Lebanon’ constituted in fact the detail of the place of death which one could have added at the family’s request and according to the existing ordinances. In order to prevent a situation of a different definition of the place of death by each and every family and the struggle by each family against the authorities, it was decided to have a uniform text on this matter.” Furthermore in the new ordinances ratified by the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee a detail to the paragraph on circumstances of death was added whose text is “fell in operational activity noting the place of death.”⁷⁶ The High Court of Justice panel, although displaying great sympathy for the petitioners and identification with their pain, could not do “beyond the legal yardsticks that guide us in our judicial approach,”⁷⁷ and in June 1998 they also rejected this petition. They found acceptable the reply by the Defense Ministry that the ordinances had taken account of two major considerations: the first, the preservation of the uniformity of the inscription on the pillows is conditioned by strict observance of the quantity of the inscription as well as the types of details that one can incorporate in its framework; the second, that the principle of equality must be observed also towards thousands of families whose beloved was brought for burial before the possibility of adding to the uniform inscription was recognized. The justices assumed that these considerations were also influenced by the stance of the Public Council that one should preserve and guard a uniform and egalitarian framework on whose basis the tombstones of the soldiers had been shaped, also in what pertains to the inscription on the tombstones, and especially as the Law of Military Cemeteries (after the amendment that was introduced to it) explicitly set forth that “in the shape of the military tombstones, their dimensions and the inscription on them, including the content and text, a format 76 Ibid. See also DMA, folder 1624, file 1313, O. Chico to H. Yisraeli, 7.17.1996, where he summed up: “Why not on the pillow? A. On the pillow there must be equality and uniformity and only formal details. B. ‘The pillow will be crowded.’ C. The pillow must be prepared already for the 30th day of mourning and it’s possible that by the 30th day there will not be agreement among family members. Why shouldn’t merely ‘a family connection’ qualify for the pillow? Every person has a pair of parents. Every person has a different additional family makeup: the number of siblings if at all, a widow, an orphan. A situation will be created that someone with many siblings will have them in a separate place and someone with a few siblings – will be on the pillow... the position of the Rehabilitation Branch resembles the Public Council’s vigorous stance... adding additional family names beyond the names of the parents is the same case as a personal inscription... the position of the defense minister dovetails with the position that was presented above.” 77 The court decision in the Takdin CD (above, footnote 71), from the words of Justice D. Beinisch.

Rejecting the Request to Add Relatives to the Tombstone Pillow 

 313

of uniformity and equality will be preserved.” Therefore the justices accepted the arguments that granting the petition would not allow preservation of the framework of uniformity in the case of families with many children, and from a technical standpoint one could not add to the existing tombstones an addition such as the request of the Bargur family – a fact that in the case of the acceptance of the petition, “would have undoubtedly served as a basis for complaints about the violation of equality between the generations of bereaved families. Difficulties of this sort, involving the lack of a possibility to add an inscription on the pillows of existing tombstones, were answered by the arrangement that was set in the ordinances, for these allow the addition of an inscription, near the front of the tombstone, on existing tombstones as well… and the arrangement that was set in the ordinances was indeed applied to tombstones that were erected before the applicability of the ordinances.” Therefore the justices found in the ordinances a plausible, balanced and proper arrangement that would provide the need to combine within the inscription on the tombstone an addition for personal expression without harming the uniform and egalitarian shape of the tombstones.⁷⁸ Justice Beinisch added: “The decision was reached by a balanced approach that plausibly expresses the individual approach vis-à-vis the approach that gives importance to the need for uniformity. When the decision was taken and the ordinances were enacted by whoever was the person so authorized under law, and even received parliamentary ratification, we cannot – according to the legal yardsticks that guide us in our judicial path – intervene in the decisions of the authorities and grant the petition.”⁷⁹ The High Court of Justice panel emphasized that inscribing the names of the parents in the uniform inscription expresses only an accepted tradition in Jewish cemeteries, especially that according to the customs of the various communities at least one of them is required while remembering the name of the deceased. Therefore one should not infer from the inscription of the names of the parents alone on the pillow a message of any sort of preference of the parents over any other family members. In this manner the justices wanted to reject the argument of the petitioners regarding discrimination in the ordinances against the other relatives, as well as discrimination against the will of the deceased.⁸⁰ In May 2006, eight years after the High Court of Justice decision and a decade after the death of Ziv, the Bargur family inscribed on the pillow what it wanted, “brother to Ayelet.”⁸¹ 78 Ibid., from the statement by Justice E. Matza. The other justices concurred with him. 79 Ibid., from the words of Justice D. Beinisch. 80 The court decision in the Takdin CD (above, footnote 71). 81 Y. Bargur, oral testimony, Ramat Hasharon, 6.4.2006.

314 

 Internal Fissures in the Rule of Uniformity

Fig. 43: Ziv Bargur’s tombstone pillow in Kiryat Shaul Military Cemetery. Source: Author’s photographs, July 2006.

Confusion and Controversy on the Council in View of Requests by Families of Those Who Fell in the Helicopter Disaster: Partial Assent and High Court of Justice Relief In the beginning of February 1997, as a result of a collision between two helicopters over the village of Shear Yashuv in the Upper Galilee, 73 soldiers who were on their way to Lebanon lost their lives. For the first time in its history the council found itself faced with a large group of parents who opposed the text of the inscription on the tombstone that had been set a short time after the death by the Division for Commemorating the Soldier – “fell in the line of duty in the helicopter accident at Shear Yashuv.” This text was essentially the regular text for the category “fell in the line of duty” that was utilized in cases of accidents, adding the name of the place, as has already been determined previously during the 90s.⁸² The deviation was the addition of the pair of words “helicopter accident,” for previously no use has been made of such a pair of words in any event 82 See above, p. 295.

Confusion and Controversy on the Council 

 315

of aerial accident (and the word “accident” was not mentioned in the case of previous accidents). For example on the tombstones of the 54 soldiers who were killed in the crash of a Yasur model helicopter in May 1977 the text engraved was only “fell in the line of duty.” Two years prior to the helicopter disaster, after the helicopter of General Nehemiah Tamari crashed in an accident where three additional officers were killed, then as well the text “fell in the line of duty” was set.⁸³

Fig. 44: The helicopter disaster – the inscription determined by the Division for Commemorating the Soldier, the military cemetery in Beer Sheva. Source: Author’s photographs, May 2002.

It would appear that the readiness of the Division for Commemorating the Soldier to deviate from custom by adding the words “helicopter accident”⁸⁴ derived from the power of the terrible incident that had no precedent in the annals of Army accidents, the oppressive feeling that was imparted on all the country’s citizens, the massive use of the pair of words “helicopter disaster” made in the media and in various events throughout the country as soon as the disaster became known and the feeling that prevailed in the Division for Commemorating the Soldier that 83 YLA, N. Schayek to members of the Public Council, 2.27.1997. 84 Council member Z. Yekutiel was the person who first directed the council’s attention to this deviation when he said: “There is a new change here, the addition ‘helicopter disaster’ is something that has never existed in the IDF hitherto.” On this see DFCSA, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 3.12.1997, p. 10.

316 

 Internal Fissures in the Rule of Uniformity

the text “fell in the line of duty” – whose depreciation the division was already aware of – could not contain the power of the current tragedy. But the text that was decided upon aroused spontaneous opposition from 15 sets of parents who sought authorization for an alternative text – each family and its particular text. The council members were surprised by the number of the requests, and further by the variety of texts. They did not conceal their consternation: “There are hardly two that are precisely the same; this is impossible, this should be clear to everybody.”⁸⁵ There were resemblances between the requests. First, there was opposition to the word “accident” coupled with a demand to substitute it with the word “disaster” – that provided a more fitting expression to the power of the incident, its essence and scope. Additionally this was the term employed by the heads of the Army and the state from the moment that the tragedy occurred, and this was the term that the public had become accustomed to. Secondly, there was a request to add some words to express the broad operational circumstances of the soldiers’ death, its ethical value and its “appropriateness” to the fallen soldier. In other words, the parents wanted to say that even if this did not constitute “falling in battle” it closely approximated it. All these sentiments could not find any expression in the text “fell in the line of duty.”⁸⁶ The chairman of the Public Council noted immediately after the council had heard the statement by the parents: “The tone that I’ve heard from all of them is that it vexes them that no mention is made here regarding the operational issue, the purpose of their flight, where they were going… that it was on the way to Lebanon or on the way to an operational mission, it was related to a mission and was not something administrative…”⁸⁷ This was not the very first time during the 90s where parents submitted requests to accord recognition to the ethical value of the death and its operational circumstances (in the event that the soldier did not fall in “battle”), given the depreciation and erosion that occurred in the category “fell in the line of duty.” In the present case matters were exacerbated due to the vast dimensions of the disaster.⁸⁸ In addition to the two joint demands some parents also demanded veneration for the uniqueness of each fallen soldier and his affiliation to his family, allowing personal expression on the pillow and to treat each family and its special request as a world in itself, forgoing any attempt to seek a unifying expression: “It must be remembered that we are dealing with 73 separate people, one should not seek 85 Ibid., p. 13, the quote is from the statement by the Council Chairman Y. Gavish. 86 Ibid., p. 16 and onwards. 87 Ibid., pp. 43-44, from the statement by Council Chairman Y. Gavish. 88 DFCSA, protocol of the Public Council Meeting, 3.12.1997, p. 16 ff.

Confusion and Controversy on the Council 

 317

a complete and perfect text with 73 families. One should address each and every one of them as a complete world and each family as a total agony. One should not attempt to find something uniform, because there is nothing that is going to express their pain in a single word.”⁸⁹ Among the inscriptions that the families requested we encounter “fell in defense of the people and the land,” “fell in defense of the homeland,” “fell in departing for a military mission in Lebanon,” “fell in the helicopter disaster at Shear Yashuv on the way to Lebanon in defense of the Northern border communities,” “fighter in the mechanized company of the Nahal Brigade,” “fell in the helicopter accident on his way to the outpost in Lebanon,” “fell on his way to defending the Northern border in the helicopter disaster at Shear Yashuv,” “fell in the helicopter disaster at Shear Yashuv on his way to defending the Northern border,” “fell on his way to a combat mission in Lebanon in the helicopter disaster at Shear Yashuv,” “fell on his way to security missions in south Lebanon in defense of the Northern residents.”⁹⁰ In mid-March, a few days after the close of the 30 days of mourning, some of the parents presented their requests to the council citing the need to acknowledge the circumstances of death and its ethical value, and below we will cite segments of their statements.⁹¹ Jonathan Misheiker, the father of Gilad: We think that the statement “fell in the helicopter accident at Shear Yashuv” misses the mark… there was something extra, they were on their way or in the course of carrying out a military mission in defense of the Northern communities, the people and the land of Israel… 65 fighters and additional Air Force crew members were sitting in these helicopters in combat uniform carrying arms and ammunition belts when the lights had already gone out… they, from my perspective, were already carrying out an operational mission and one could not measure this only in terms of the time they arrived at the outpost… when you see a person falling in battle or was on his way to a mission and fell, this gives a tug to the heartstrings, there is a positive-educational aspect to this that I think we should all be aware of and seek it… fell in fulfilling or on the way to fulfilling an operational mission on his way to Lebanon or on his way to defend the Northern communities or on his way to defend the people in Israel. This will suffice with regards to the addition that we request for the words “fell in the line of duty.” I am aware that this is… a hybrid construct, for these boys weren’t on their way to an Army sponsored vacation, on the other hand they weren’t actually engaged in battle, but I think that there is good reason given the circumstances of the matter, the circumstances of this specific picture, this specific accident, to write things explicitly on the tombstone. 89 Ibid., p. 37, from the statement by A. Gonen. 90 An appendix added to the letter by N. Schayek (above, footnote 83). 91 See above, footnote 88. See also Ha’aretz, 4.2.1997; ibid., 3.2.1997; Maariv, 2.23.1997.

318 

 Internal Fissures in the Rule of Uniformity

Gad Levi, the father of Shiloh: I am a religious person, a believing Jew… I want the tombstones of the sons to serve as a fount for education and sacrifice. They gave their lives, and we are living… precisely in an age where they speak of a decline in motivation and perhaps some educational problems. This is the place… they’ll come and ask me: these people gave their lives in defense of the people and the land and others didn’t?!... One can add this on a permanent basis: “fell in battle in defense of the people and the land.” For whoever it is fitting, “fell in the line of duty in defense of the people and the land.” It could be that he also fell in an accident in defense of the people and the land. This case was neither an accident nor a battle.

Shmuel Zahavi, Dan’s father: Please write something in the text, and not necessarily what I’m writing there…. But find some text that will convey why these children were traveling there.

Yehuda Rutenberg, the father of Assaf: I think that the people should learn from these boys, who sacrificed without making calculations, I don’t know if some of the parents know what they were at all doing there up above… these guys furnished an example and this example must serve as a beacon to us and to the succeeding generations, that the State of Israel is fighting every day for its security and survival… one must provide a personal example and there must be education. Without education, without a people’s history, the state would not exist, the people would not exist. This is the legacy of our children and it doesn’t presently matter where he fell, but for the sake of future generations you must commemorate this in every possible manner.

Chaim Sharabi, Gil’s father: I’ve put my entire heart into education and I think that here we have an instructive example how we can educate the people, and particularly the younger generation… we have to convince people that our children were those who gave their lives on behalf of the people and the land and brought about a temporary unity… we’re going to honor the memory of our children, but in fact we are honoring the dignity of our country… and if I want that eventually the children will come to study history, not from pages in a book, but from a visit to the cemetery, in order that they shouldn’t become estranged from the cemetery and arrive there only on memorial and anniversary days, and one of the ways to study history is to pass through and read the tombstones and the history that is taught by the tombstones. What will my grandson say, when he comes and reads about his uncle? That he fell in a helicopter accident? Who was he? Nothing. The tombstones have to educate us who our sons were, why did they fall and what was the basis behind it. It must all in all express something of human dignity and liberty, as Justice Barak emphasized… we don’t just have uniformity in this country, there’s also the personal expression allotted every single person… it’s acceptable that there should be uniformity but the emphasis should be on the uniqueness, not the uniformity, it is necessary to emphasize this and in a few measured words, both for the dignity of the one that has passed on as well as for the dignity of those who remain that the

Confusion and Controversy on the Council 

 319

living person is dear and the dead person is dear. And one should accord dignity to the living as well, and we should note that they gave us the most precious thing, but this should find expression. What are we asking? A few words that will convey who our children were, should this cause discomfort to those whose children did the very same thing?

Tami Gonen, the mother of Aviv: What we’re trying to do is to express this reality that Aviv and all his friends who were on board the helicopters were prepared for, rather than ignore it. This has to appear, otherwise it doesn’t exist, otherwise they just happened to go up, and they didn’t just happen to go up, you all know, that when they asked the defense minister why are they there in Lebanon and aren’t evacuated from there, he said: It is necessary to protect the Northern communities… the principle is that these people were fighters and this should find expression on the pillow and not on the margins and not on the side and not in any other place… I don’t see any reason for this [why it shouldn’t be written] “fell in the line of duty on the Lebanon border in defense of the Northern communities”… And we won’t quibble about the text… we came solely for one thing, for the freedom to add the character of our son and your son and the son of everybody here, but they weren’t there by happenstance, they were there for a purpose. They didn’t get aboard the helicopter in order to fall in an accident.

Yaakov Gotlieb, father of Micah: What are the parents requesting here? They are asking to write an expression, an expression to the missions on which they embarked… the sons were killed on specific missions. Everybody volunteered, everyone is a youth who was in the vanguard of the force, people who served as the spearhead in everything… when [a relative] communes with a grave he wants to see things in writing, as they were in reality – not just let us assume something most mendacious, “fell in the line of duty.” If he went on a combat mission or was on his way to a combat mission, this is what he asks to put in writing.

David Katz, the father of Mickey: We thought of adding something, a line that would represent Mickey, a fighter… and how does this fit in within the framework of uniformity?... when I arrive at a military cemetery, then from a distance I definitely see that there is something that represents some form of single objective, embedded in the uniformity of the cemetery. The more I draw closer to the individual, I think that it’s important that we should know more and more about the individual… he fell in this battle and this one fell in that battle; he holds the medal Hero of Israel, he has two orders of exemplary heroism and fell in such and such battle and the power of the details provides the personal aspect to the cemetery… this means that one can observe uniformity and also some sort of personal tone or a line that distinguishes the specific fighter who we are focusing on and his neighbors… in our opinion the personal inscription must be an inseparable part of the pillow as is accepted in every Jewish tombstone where the inscription concludes with the ‫ …תנצב"ה‬there is no room for all sorts of things under the table as we see that this is what goes on in the cemetery folklore.

320 

 Internal Fissures in the Rule of Uniformity

The brother of Aviv Gonen: It is possible to preserve uniformity and allow each family the option of providing a line on the pillow that will express its pain. When I go to my brother’s grave today, where it is written “Aviv Gonen, fell in the line of duty” – I’m saying something very personal – I don’t feel anything, but the moment that there will be something, that I gave expression to within my family, I’m really confident that I will feel something. Today I’m turning to stone, this is how I feel.

A week after hearing the statements from the families the council plenum assembled in order to formulate its response, and this was a far from easy task. Arguments regarding preserving uniformity and equality were indeed voiced, but counterarguments were this time expressed forcefully. At this time some of the council members were replaced,⁹² and the new members spoke in favor of acceding to the families’ request, arguing that one should not speak in the name of values that no longer existed in Israeli society. And even if sweeping agreement by the council to all the requests was not forthcoming, then at least one should propose to the families some options to choose from.⁹³ And this is what LP had to say: I’m new here and therefore perhaps more free of “prejudices” about what occurred previously. I have the feeling that at least some of the council members view themselves in the role of the Dutch boy who put his finger in the dike and feels that he bears all the responsibility for ensuring that there won’t be a flood. People came and helped the boy. Here in my opinion there’s no chance. Hold your finger in the dike as long as you want, this is simply hopeless. There is no point in fighting for the principles of the past, because I think that they are no longer valid, and therefore they will not stand up in modern times that are currently transpiring. I don’t think that one should sanctify this uniformity that so many people speak of and therefore I’ve noted to myself that one can permit and allow a number of versions, and I was pleased that these things surfaced here as well and I definitely agree that this will also soften the approach of the parents if they are allowed to choose and I personally believe that it won’t be so deviant that in the case of one lying next to the other when both fell the same place, that with one of them it will be written in the last line below this way and for the other in a different way.⁹⁴

Others remarked on the phenomenon of individualism in society that could no longer be restrained, and they also reached similar conclusions to those that LP had arrived at, either because they feared an additional petition to the High Court of Justice against the council and an erosion of its authority as a result, or because 92 See above, footnote 83. 93 DFCSA, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 3.18.1997. 94 Ibid., pp. 18-19, from the statement by LP.

Confusion and Controversy on the Council 

 321

of the image that had been pinned on the council as an obstinate and capricious body or due to the fear that the families as a whole would totally cease paying heed to the council and the Defense Ministry if they would not display flexibility towards them, as a number of families had done in the recent past “who took the law into their own hands, didn’t ask anybody, they just went and did it.” It would be preferable therefore that the deviations from uniformity should be committed with license rather than be carried out in the face of prohibition while totally undermining the status of the council and the Defense Ministry.⁹⁵ EY added the following: “We want these people who operated within the framework of the law to remain in the framework of the law, and that not only should they remain within the framework of the law… we’re embarking upon an era of privatization, I’m a kibbutz member and I can tell you: This is a disease... everyone wants to be an only child. If we were today to solve the problem of this group, even with some sort of text that responds to most of the needs, tomorrow we’re going to confront a new problem… I have no problem with what is written on my son’s grave, no problem with it at all, I don’t believe that it really matters what’s written there, it doesn’t matter at all, but if it is so important to them and if there are other people for whom it will be important in the future this will get increasingly worse, in order to prevent deviations in all directions, let’s do something sweeping. You have so many letters; write what you want with the proviso that the text is acceptable to the Defense Ministry.”⁹⁶ ST opined: “The image that we have created over the years for the Public Council – and I’ve spoken with many people, who aren’t bereaved parents – and we currently have this image, currently I say, of an institution that arbitrarily imposes its will… I don’t think – also for example from what I’ve heard here – that logic is on our side and emotion is on the other side, there is a sort of arrogance, that I don’t believe is fitting… today the atmosphere is such… there is an atmosphere in the public of openness and a demand for openness. I do agree that on our part there are certain limitations, and therefore I first of all would go by the principle of two texts as a proposal, and if we have to negotiate with them as a body, to allow them the option and not impose upon them a diktat… but they should have an option, between two or even three.”⁹⁷ The council members who stuck to the principle of uniformity and equality could not in any manner embrace these opinions. From their standpoint one was dealing with a total breakdown of the frameworks, a total change of the character of the military cemetery and damage to sanctified principles. At the beginning of the session TG emphasized that there was no precedent for a sweeping agree95 See above, footnote 93. 96 See above, footnote 93, pp. 9-10, from the statement by EY. 97 Ibid., p. 14, from the statement by ST.

322 

 Internal Fissures in the Rule of Uniformity

ment to the request by the families and that even in the terrorist attack in Beit Lid, where 22 soldiers were murdered, there was no deviation from the accepted text. “True, there are 15 families and for each family it is very important… that they should write what was noted in the form that they sent and therefore it is impossible to accommodate each family and say: Okay we’re going to write it and we’re going to make some sort of giant hodge podge in the cemetery, and employ a double standard. Why for this family did they write such and such and for this family they wrote such and such. The pain is piercing for every one of us and for everybody and therefore I would precisely request a uniform text.”⁹⁸ BD was even more forceful: When we go to the cemetery, at least this is what we think, when we are under the tombstones everybody is equal and here we’re talking about privatization, uniqueness and especially individualism… everybody even those who were liberated from the ghettoes and came here to establish a state, everybody thought, he hastened to establish a state for himself, but he was not so fortunate, as he fell in 1948. I have tales of heroism from 1948, before 1948 until today and they are all heroes and they are all dear to us, and not only because of the issue of the helicopter accident. So you now want to propose to us, as I’ve heard now from everybody, this issue of privatization is most revolting, everybody with his own uniqueness, so many versions and to allow so many variations and so many options. Do you think that sagacious people were born only today? They didn’t exist previously? But we said: equality and uniformity, everybody came here to establish a state and they are defending this country and who knows for how long? This is our sacred objective, and we have all given our lives, then we are all equal. So if this is in carrying out or on a mission or on the way and we know that they were on their way to Lebanon, so on this I am willing to compromise, although I always say that I’m about to create a precedent, I’m going to compromise on something, who knows what repercussions there’ll be in the future, this is what happened, in the case of Wechselbaum and others, this is what occurred. These 15 families just happened to launch their revolt today? They’ve studied the history and they came prepared for us with three lawyers, this is not okay… I’m willing to compromise on “fell in the line of duty” – this is an obligation – “on his way to a mission in Lebanon” and that’s enough and one doesn’t need a semantic change of this word or the other and really I’m saying, we’re going to visit the 73 tombstones there, what are we going to see? All of them about the same accident, but everybody fell in a different fashion. Is this conceivable?⁹⁹

The position of Council Chairman Yehuda Gavish resembled that of BD, but he requested to focus on the grounds of equality and not on uniformity: “We want everybody to be equal in a military cemetery… we don’t want someone to have more, if his father has better rhetoric so then he’ll have something different while 98 Ibid., p. 4, from the statement by TG. 99 Ibid., pp. 20-21, from the statement by BD.

Confusion and Controversy on the Council 

 323

someone whose father doesn’t know how to speak will have less,” especially as the families always have the option of expressing themselves in the framework of the personal expression inscription. He proposed – and his proposal was accepted in the council – to allow all the families of those who fell in the accident to choose between the text that had been fixed at the time in the Division for Commemorating the Soldier – “fell in the line of duty in the helicopter accident at Shear Yashuv” – and another inscription that he had formulated, “fell in the line of duty on the way to operational activity in Lebanon.” He opposed a proposal to present the families with a number of alternative texts for their selection, in order to minimize the impairment to equality and also because he feared that “if we start… there will always be someone who will come and say ‘I want one more,’ and my friends, won’t we agree to another one? The High Court of Justice will say, why did you agree to three and not agree to the fourth? There’s no end to these matters.” The text that he proposed was in his opinion the optimal text because it could serve as a common basis to the request that the 15 families presented: There was no mention of the word “accident” – that aroused widespread opposition among some parents, who demanded to write the word “disaster.” It also included reference to the operational aspect of the death – something that the families also requested; and finally, the text did not deviate from the principle that one should not detail the circumstances of death. The opposition to the word “disaster,” despite the request of the families, was common to many on the council, as Gavish argued: “because every grave is a disaster. Why should we write here ‘disaster’ and not write ‘disaster’ for Nehemiah Tamari [a general who also perished in a helicopter accident] or for the 54 [who died in a similar accident], or if somebody died in a traffic accident, all these are disasters.” And LK added: “There are many disasters that occur in the Army… We shouldn’t get into this matter of ‘the disaster’ in my opinion, because by using a ‘disaster’ we are making a breakthrough here and this will serve as a future precedent for a thousand and one variations, anytime something happens to somebody he will say: ‘Wasn’t this a disaster? This was a disaster.’”¹⁰⁰ Let us emphasize that seven out of 19 members present at that meeting believed that one should propose three alternative versions to the families for their selection. The relatively large number of council members who no longer “toed the line” is most informative about the spread of division within the council on the issue of preserving the principles of uniformity and equality of the tombstones as opposed to agreeing to the requests of the bereaved families.¹⁰¹

100 See above, footnote 93. 101 Ibid.

324 

 Internal Fissures in the Rule of Uniformity

The council’s decisions were ratified by the defense minister,¹⁰² and in this fashion the families of those who died in the helicopter disaster were given the possibility to amend the text that had been previously set by the division with the text “fell in the line of duty on the way to operational activity in Lebanon.” In the beginning of April 1997, less than two weeks after the council decision, the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee as may be recalled ratified the ordinances to the Law of Military Cemeteries and a new category of death was added: “fell in operational activity.” The new version that was proposed to the families of the fallen therefore included two categories of death: “fell in the line of duty” and “fell in operational activity,” and it was brought to the attention of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee at the close of its deliberations regarding the ratification of the ordinances. From the council’s perspective, it appeared that the severe crisis – perhaps the most severe crisis in its history – was already behind it. In summing up matters the chairman drew encouragement from the fact that only 15 families out of the 73 families had presented requests for changes. “The other 58 didn’t say a word. The fact of the matter is, they didn’t approach us to request a change. This means, what was written there [the text set by the division] was not catastrophic from their standpoint, from the standpoint of how they view this. If this was a catastrophe, all 58 families would have spoken. This is a certainty, nobody keeps silent on these matters, if he believes that this harms what is most dear to him.”¹⁰³ However Gavish erred in his prognoses. Most families of those who fell in the disaster had awaited, so it emerges, the council’s decision, and when the alternative proposed by the council did not include the words “helicopter disaster,” they expressed in the beginning of summer 1997 via the Nonprofit Organization for Commemorating the Dead of the Helicopter Disaster at Shear Yashuv their protest before all the decision-makers. The nonprofit organization had been established in spring of that year and united 66 families. One of its first activities was to launch a clarification of the text inscription desired by the families. More than 60 families demanded the addition of “the helicopter disaster.”¹⁰⁴ Despite this one can assume that the total of those demanding changes would have been smaller if the organization had not been active, because quite a few would have given up contending with the establishment in order to achieve their request. 102 DFCSA, protocol of the Public Council Meeting, 6.25.1997, p. 11; Maariv, 3.23.1997. 103 See above, footnote 93, p. 24, the citation is from the statement by Council Chairman Y. Gavish. And see also SCA, High Court of Justice file 6069/00, Y. Gavish to the families of those killed in the helicopter disaster, 3.19.1997. 104 SCA, High Court of Justice file 6069/00, letter from the nonprofit organization to Y. Mordechai, 6.30.1997.

Confusion and Controversy on the Council 

 325

The full version demanded by the nonprofit organization was “fell on the way to operational activity in Lebanon in the helicopter disaster at Shear Yashuv.” For the parents it was important to note the words “disaster,” “disaster – and not an accident such as a traffic accident, or an accident in a game.”¹⁰⁵ The sought-after text also removed the component “in the line of duty” which betokened a more “inferior” death, and in contradistinction accentuated the category of “operational activity,” that now, following the ratification of the ordinances, ranked second in importance after “fell in battle.” Repeated indifference by the defense establishment provoked a sharp response from the nonprofit organization that included the following expressions: “Your Excellency the Minister! We are asking you with a torn and pained heart, what is going on here? Until when will they continue to grieve us and abuse our sentiments? Are they playing word games with us or prestige games about who decides what? Does it not suffice that we have sacrificed the thing that is most dear to us? What all in all are we requesting for these sacred victims?”¹⁰⁶ The Defense Ministry continued to adhere to its opposition to the nonprofit organization’s request, and the same applied to the Public Council that made it clear that “since the matter before us is an issue of equality and this must find expression particularly in the cemetery among the fallen… we believe that the death of any soldier is a disaster and therefore there is no reason to note this in the present case as well [on the pillow] therefore we’ve opposed the text helicopter ‘disaster.’”¹⁰⁷ Furthermore, “the Public Council views the text that the families have requested as a grave deviation, that has no precedent, and will create a situation where any text that will be demanded in the future we will have to approve, in light of the sought-after precedent.”¹⁰⁸ After a discussion with the defense minister, the minister agreed to the text that the nonprofit organization proposed, 105 Ibid., letter from the nonprofit organization to Y. Mordechai, 11.19.1997 – the source of the citation. 106 Ibid. 107 SCA, High Court of Justice file 6069/00, R. Noy to O. Chico, attached is a protocol of the meeting between the defense minister and the representatives of the helicopter disaster nonprofit organization on 1.9.1998 – the citation is from the statement by the Public Council’s Chairman Y. Gavish. See also ibid., an announcement on behalf of the State Attorney’s Office, 10.5.2000, p. 3. 108 Ibid., Y. Gavish to the defense minister, 1.21.1998 – the source of the citation. See also ibid., R. Babian to M. Arens, 2.25.1999; ibid., Z. Gross to R. Babian, 2.27.1999: “I assumed that the council’s arguments are familiar to you. They are based inter alia on the sentiment that the use of the expression ‘disaster’ on the tombstone in the specific case, although we are dealing with a terrible and grievous disaster, would create an iniquity and constitute discrimination against the collective of the families of the fallen as this expression does not appear on their tombstones, because any death of a family member is a grievous disaster for it”; announcement by the State Attorney’s Office (above, footnote 107), pp. 2-3.

326 

 Internal Fissures in the Rule of Uniformity

save for the use of the word “disaster.” The minister insisted that the word “accident” should be employed rather than the word “disaster.” Nevertheless the minister was willing to permit the inscription of the words “helicopter disaster” on that part of the tombstone earmarked for personal inscription. Therefore the nonprofit organization was left with no recourse but to ask for the relief of the High Court of Justice in a petition that it presented against the defense minister and against the Public Council in October 2000, demanding the incorporation of the words “helicopter disaster” on the tombstone pillow. For the eighth time since 1974 the High Court of Justice was called upon to decide the issue of the inscription on the military tombstone. The nonprofit organization raised three major arguments before the court: First, the pair of words “helicopter disaster” had been seared into the collective national memory and one could not ignore it in the inscription on the tombstones. This involved noting the objective circumstances of death, as grasped by the public at large and the designated authorities of the state, and therefore their place was not in the personal inscription but on the pillow, within the framework of the standard inscription. Secondly, the ordinances for the military cemeteries detailing the permissible text in the uniform inscription went into force only after the disaster, and therefore in the present case these ordinances did not apply. Only the amendment from May 1996 paragraph 5 in the law applied here, that, as mentioned, decrees that “in the shape of the military tombstones, their dimensions and the inscription on them, including the content and text, a format of uniformity and equality shall be preserved.” In the case of the helicopter disaster this determination is indeed “preserved and not impaired and is definitely not a substantial impairment.” “‘Substantial impairment’ in this context does not mean any impairment whatsoever, but only such impairment that can mar uniformity and equality in a blatant and genuine fashion. In our case we are not dealing with changing the shape of the tombstone, the size, its surroundings and the like – details that can change the nature of the tombstone as a military tombstone, but merely with a slight change to the text of the inscription in a manner that will preserve the dignity of a fallen on the one hand and will not lead to a substantial impairment to the principle of equality on the other hand.” Furthermore, “as the respondents [the defense minister and the council] have seen fit and proper to use the expression ‘the helicopter accident’ there is no reason or justification that they should raise opposition due to considerations of equality and/or uniformity to a demand to alter this expression to ‘the helicopter disaster,’” for also the expression “helicopter accident” has no basis in the text of the law at the time of implementing the inscription. Third, the position of the defense minister is defective because it lacks balance and impairs the law of human dignity because it does not assign sufficient weight to the position of the families but sees every-

Confusion and Controversy on the Council 

 327

thing in the extreme implementation of the principle of equality. “The petitioner will emphasize that the principle of equality and uniformity is not an end-all and that the respondents must take into account the position of the families and assign it adequate weight as the central consideration in its decision, something that they have not done at all.”¹⁰⁹ The defense establishment argued in response as follows: First of all the justices in the first Bargur High Court of Justice case had already ratified the legality and validity of the ordinances of the inscription from 1997 although these had not yet gone into force. The requests via the nonprofit organization therefore contravened these ordinances that set forth in the law among other things the categories of inscriptions on the pillow. Secondly, impairment to uniformity and equality would be created, because the death of every soldier constitutes a disaster and therefore there is no reason to note this precisely on the pillow of the tombstones of those who fell in the helicopter accident. Furthermore, there were grounds for concern that should the petition be sustained, other bereaved families would find themselves aggrieved by the exclusive labeling of the helicopter accident as a disaster, or alternatively they would similarly demand adding the term “disaster” on the tombstone pillow of their beloved, something that could involve the replacement of pillows on the tombstones of soldiers who had fallen in the past. Third, the deviation from the ordinance directives would encourage demands for further deviations on the part of the bereaved families, and these would totally frustrate the values of uniformity and equality. Fourth, the families were given the option of inscribing the words “helicopter disaster,” in this context or the other, within the framework of the personal inscription at the bottom of the tombstone. Fifth, there is no contradiction between the permission that the defense establishment grants to inscribe the pair of words “helicopter disaster” in the section allotted for the personal inscription and the contention that the inscription of these same words on the pillow would hurt the feelings of the bereaved families, because “when the inscription ‘disaster’ appears on the pillow of the tombstone it is interpreted as an act by the state, or on its behalf, which awards the inscription the character of preference over others. This is not the case when the family chooses to make a personal statement on that part of the tombstone that is intended for this purpose. The distinction between the state character that finds its expression in the details on the pillow and the personal expressions of the family realize the human dignity of all the fallen when uniformity and equality serve as the guide posts.”¹¹⁰ 109 SCA, High Court Justice file 6069/00, amended petition, 10.26.2000, pp. 1-8 – the source of all the citations. 110 All the citations are from the SCA, ibid., announcement on behalf of the State Attorney’s Office, 10.5.2000, or from SCA, ibid., response affidavit, 12.10.2000, pp. 1-14.

328 

 Internal Fissures in the Rule of Uniformity

The judges of the High Court of Justice, Yaakov Turkel, Dalia Dorner and Eliezer Rivlin, who sat on the case, delivered their verdict in April 2001 – four years after the disaster. The guiding principle in their verdict was to be as accommodating as possible in terms of leniency and flexibility that would mitigate the grief of the fallen soldiers’ families. They accepted the position of the nonprofit organization and instructed the defense minister to incorporate the words “helicopter disaster” on the tombstone pillow. The rationale behind their decision was the argument that from the very moment that the minister had agreed to expand the framework of the possible inscriptions in the uniform inscription for noting circumstances of death as they appeared in the ordinances of 1997 and allowed writing the word pair “helicopter accident,” he had effectively superseded the limits of the ordinances, because this category does not appear there. Therefore “he is blocked… from objecting to the words ‘helicopter disaster’ on the grounds that they have no basis in the ordinances. Just as the words ‘helicopter disaster’ are not included in the text of the ordinances, likewise the words ‘helicopter accident’ are not included. Hence there is nothing in the ordinances or their interpretation to support his position [the minister’s]. Once he had excluded himself from the principle he cannot rely upon it further.” The High Court of Justice judges also rejected the claim by the defense minister and the Public Council that incorporating the word “disaster” on the tombstone pillow would detract from uniformity and equality. They explained that It is true that the death of a soldier is always a disaster – for him, for his family, for his friends, for the Army and for the state — and from this standpoint there is no distinction between the fallen in the incident under discussion and other fallen soldiers. However the use of the words “helicopter disaster” is not intended to distinguish the disaster that struck the relatives of those who fell in the incident under discussion, as opposed to the disaster that befell the relatives of other fallen soldiers, but to distinguish the incident under discussion itself. The words “the helicopter disaster,” constituting an amalgam that is made of one piece, have been embedded into the public consciousness and have made the 73 dead into one family, and such is the name of this family. The request of the petitioner is essentially to change one description of the incident with another description that is seemingly more accepted by the public and it is most definitely more acceptable to the relatives of the fallen soldiers. Once the defense minister agreed to distinguish the circumstances of the death of these departed soldiers by adding the words “helicopter accident” to the uniform inscription, then the substitution of the words “helicopter disaster” cannot impair uniformity, equality, or the dignity of other fallen soldiers… we are not dealing with the whim of the relatives of a single soldier but with the wish of an entire public that wishes to stand for itself.

Likewise the very nature of the combination “helicopter disaster,” linked to a specific incident, totally removes the apprehension raised by the defense minister

The Establishment of a Subcommittee for Reexamining the Inscription 

 329

and the council regarding a demand that can be raised by other bereaved families to add the term “disaster” to the tombstones of their beloved.¹¹¹

Fig. 45: The helicopter disaster – the inscription after the High Court’s decision, the military cemetery in Beer Sheva. Source: Author’s photographs, May 2002.

The Establishment of a Subcommittee for Reexamining the Inscription on the Tombstones of the Fallen and Its Recommendations The backdrop to the establishment of a subcommittee on behalf of the council “to reexamine the inscription on the tombstones of the fallen” was the request by the Bargur family to have the council once again discuss its request, although it had been rejected twice at the High Court of Justice. In December 1999 the Bargur family again presented its request before the council plenum to add the name of the sister Ayelet to the pillow. The council indeed turned down the request, but in the wake of the deliberation on the request another discussion arose in the council, that was unforeseen, regarding the question if it was not proper to reexamine the principles of the inscription that had already been fixed by law and to recommend to the minister an amendment to the law. The question arose because 111 SCA, ibid., the decision on 4.16.2001 (published on 5.7.2001) – the source of all the citations.

330 

 Internal Fissures in the Rule of Uniformity

the law was indeed legislated in 1997, but it anchored principles that had been set in the remote past, and perhaps the vast amount of time that had since elapsed and the altered reality mandated a reexamination of the principles. The demand for a reexamination of the principles was led by the new members who had just recently lost the thing dearest to them and had joined the family of bereavement and the council. Adi Mintz presented the problem that the brothers and sisters of the fallen had no status and their loss was not noted in the many frameworks, such as ceremonies and the like, in all its severity. “They are zero, they are nothing,” and perhaps it was proper to allow the inscription of their names on the tombstone in order that “their dignity would not go missing amid their grief.”¹¹² It was apparent that such a sharp and clear argument regarding the rights of brothers and sisters to be listed on the pillow now made an impression even on the veteran council members. One of them accused his veteran comrades of responsibility for the many deviations on the tombstone and its surroundings, because these derived from the veterans’ inattentiveness to the feelings of the families and their requests and to changing trends in society and its values. On the issue of the inscription on the pillow he saw it as a personal matter that pertained to the family and demanded “to discuss a general rule revision of the entire issue of the inscription on the tombstones.”¹¹³ Some of the council veterans opposed any change from existing practice, but others proposed opening up the issue to a more thorough discussion after the subcommittee had examined the issue and presented its recommendations to the council.¹¹⁴ Thus the Subcommittee for Reexamining the Inscription on the Tombstones was established, and the composition of its members represented the spectrum of opinions that had been voiced in the council plenum. After a year, in December 2000, the subcommittee submitted its recommendations that were adopted unanimously, and they were discussed in the council on March 2001. It emerges that despite what had been voiced in the council plenum the subcommittee was in agreement regarding the need to preserve the uniformity of the pillow in a format that was almost identical to the existing format. “A pillow on the grave plot is, in the opinion of all council members, the official state expression that reflects the personal details of the fallen.” One change that the committee recommended was adding the awards that the fallen soldier held, beginning with a commendation from the Chief of Staff through the Order of Valor. On this matter the commission

112 DFCSA, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 12.12.1999, pp. 25-26, from the statement by A. Mintz. 113 Ibid., p. 50, from the statement by E. Ben Shem. 114 See the protocol of the Public Council meeting (above, footnote 112).

The Establishment of a Subcommittee for Reexamining the Inscription 

 331

relied on accepted practice in British cemeteries.¹¹⁵ Already in 1995, when the council dealt with the issues of the ordinances for the personal inscription, its members believed – as opposed to the position of the Defense Ministry – that one should allow listing the medals in the framework of the personal inscription, and there were those who felt that one should allow listing them even on the pillow. A second change that was proposed was to cancel the entry regarding the immigration of a fallen soldier and noting the place from where he emigrated to Israel, but to suffice with noting his place of birth. The subcommittee assumed that this detail was important in the distant past but today it had become cumbersome and marred the uniformity of the pillow.¹¹⁶ The most significant changes that the subcommittee recommended dealt with the personal inscription. First it was proposed that the marble plaque upon which the personal inscription was written should be moved forward and placed near the pillow. The basis for this recommendation was the desire to equalize the status of the personal-family portion of the tombstone with the state portion. Joining them physically symbolized their being one unit, equal in status, and canceling the presumably inferior status of the personal-family portion located in the area of the feet. Joining the marble plaque to the pillow expanded the pillow to some extent and responded to requests and arguments of the type raised by the Bargur family and by Adi Mintz. The second recommendation by the subcommittee was that the width of the marble plaque intended for the personal expression inscription should be doubled to 30 cm. It would be designed by an artist, would be uniform in all the military cemeteries and one could enter on it details exclusively of a personal nature. It would appear that the proposal to double the area of the inscription conveying personal expression derived from the assumption that this would reduce the need for personal expression via various additions on the tombstone and its surroundings.¹¹⁷ A third recommendation determined that a subcommittee acting on the council’s behalf would be established and joined by a representative of the Division for Commemorating the Soldier to decide the rules for personal inscription in the spirit of these principles. The subcommittee further recommended that the power to authorize the text of the personal inscription would be expropriated from the head of the Division for Commemorating the Soldier and would be placed in the hands of a subcommittee that would be appointed for this purpose. It seems that in this manner the committee intended 115 DFCSA, summary of the deliberation at the Public Council meeting, 3.18.2001 – the source of the citations. See also DFCSA, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 3.18.2001, pp. 7-8, the statement by the subcommittee chairman, Y. Lautenberg. 116 Summary of the deliberation at the Public Council meeting (above, footnote 115). 117 Ibid., protocol of the Public Council meeting (above, footnote 115).

332 

 Internal Fissures in the Rule of Uniformity

to expand the circle of consideration as well as to entrust to the family of bereavement decisions pertaining to approval or rejection of the inscription text.¹¹⁸ All these decisions, both regarding the personal inscription and the uniform inscription, were authorized by the council,¹¹⁹ but the minister’s authorization and the authorization of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee to add these changes to the ordinances were required as well. Likewise such authorizations were required for the change that the subcommittee proposed regarding the addition of two new categories of inscription: the first – “fell in the line of duty on his way to operational activity,” and this according to the precedent that the council had already set in the helicopter disaster, and the second – “died as a result of a wound sustained during his service,” which was devoted to cases of IDF invalids who had 100% recognized disability, if hospitalization was contiguous between being wounded and death.¹²⁰

Changes in the Uniform Inscription over the Years Categories of Death 1953 (Council)

1961 (Council)

Fell in battle

Those who fell in a war

Fell in the line of duty

All other deaths excluding “died”

Died

Natural death or suicide

Passed away (instead of “died”)

Natural death or suicide

The latter half of the 60s Fell during service (Council)

Doubtful suicide

1970 (Council) and 1976 Fell in battle, noting the (Rehabilitation Branch) place of death

Fell in battle, shelling, bombing, friendly fire, killed from the air by the enemy, encounter with the enemy, killed by a mine under battle conditions

Fell in the line of duty

Weapons accident, killed by a weapon outside of training, an aerial accident, traffic accident on the job, active nature, work-related accident, plane crash, drowning, mines but not under combat conditions, training accident

118 Summary of the deliberation at the Public Council meeting (above, footnote 115). 119 Protocol of the Public Council meeting (above, footnote 115). 120 Summary of the Public Council meeting (above, footnote 115).

The Establishment of a Subcommittee for Reexamining the Inscription 

1997 (legislation)

 333

Fell during his service (= fell during the time of service)

The soldier who died during his period of service excluding someone who fell in battle or fell in the line of duty

Passed away during his service

Death during the time of service in exceptional circumstances and with the authorization of the Tombstone Subcommittee of the Public Council (including natural death and suicides)

Fell in battle, including noting the place of death Fell in operational activity, including noting the place of death Fell in the line of duty, allowing the option of noting the place of death (upon the request of the relative) Fell during his service Passed away during his service

2000 (legislation)

Passed away

Reserve Major General, reserve Lt. General, retired police Commissioner, retired chief Commissioner

Fell in a terror attack, noting the place of the attack

Terror attacks

Dates of Birth and Death 1951 (Council)

Noting the Hebrew date exclusively

1991 (the High Court of Justice)

Granting the possibility of adding the secular dates alongside the Hebrew date

334 

 Internal Fissures in the Rule of Uniformity

Noting the army corps and the military profession The 60s (Council)

Granting permission to note only the “Navy”

1968 (Council)

Granting permission to note the profession “pilot”

1975 (High Court of Justice)

Rescinding the option of noting the profession “pilot”

2001 (Council)

Granting the possibility of noting the profession “pilot” (and creating a distinction between a military “profession” that is not permissible to note and the military “job” that may be noted)

Chapter 11

Everyone Does as He Sees Fit

The Continuing Phenomenon of Embellishments – Impairments to Uniformity in the Face of Impotence Displayed by the Establishment As has already been alluded to in the previous chapters, the relatives (generally the families but sometimes also friends) of many fallen soldiers placed on the tombstones and in their surroundings various articles – beginning with planters (and developing the garden around the tombstone), following with passages of writing and poetry and culminating with arms paraphernalia and sometimes the picture of a fallen soldier – articles that one can define using the general term “embellishments.” These embellishments deeply marred the equality and uniformity of the tombstones and their surroundings. On the basis of the experience that he had accumulated over the years in talks with the bereaved families, the head of the Division for Commemorating the Soldier, Yosef Dekel, already in 1953 described the mental foundation to the embellishment phenomenon in the following picturesque words: “In every grave of a soldier, the hearts of the parents are buried there in addition to his body. Although the grave is a small construction unit, the bereaved families view it as a palatial structure and they take care of it no less than they take care of their home… therefore it would be mistaken to think that the building in the cemetery is the same as any building.”¹ Decades later the bereaved families provided a similar explanation: “When the son dies then he [the parent] doesn’t know what to do first. He goes to establish a shrine at home, he establishes a shrine to his son… he begins to build all sorts of things, beginning with tombs, statues…”² Among the bereaved families there were those who viewed the day-to-day care of the plants and the gardening work at the tombstone and its surroundings (“we have all been turned into gardeners, we’ve learned the profession all too well and this is not good”)³ as a form of continued care for the son,⁴ and there were those who saw certain types of embellishments, such as placing the picture of the fallen soldier on the tombstone, as the import 1 AA, file 90/72/38, Y. Dekel to S. Peres, 2.2.1953. 2 DFCSA, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 7.31.1997, from the statement by B. Shemer. See also the book by Hendel (1991) and the article by Naveh (1998). 3 SCA, High Court of Justice Deliberations file 3299/93, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 5.29.1994, p. 26, from the statement by G. Katz. See p. 368 (and footnote 49), similar sentiments that were voiced by Y. Ronen, a bereaved father from the Yom Kippur War. 4 DFCSA, protocol of the Public Council’s Permanent Committee meeting, 4.26.1995, pp. 26-27.

336 

 Everyone Does as He Sees Fit

of an alien culture by families of immigrants: “because we in Israel didn’t know of such things.”⁵ There will be those who will contend that the civilian cemeteries also had an influence. During the era of the High Court of Justice cases by the Wechselbaum family there were quite a few people including some of the High Court of Justice judges who viewed the embellishment phenomenon as a form of personal expression allowing the families to convey their feelings towards their beloved given the prohibition on any personal inscription by the family on the tombstone. Behavioral science researchers will undoubtedly propose additional explanations of the phenomenon, but it is not the psychological, cultural explanation of the phenomenon that is the focus of this chapter. Below we will try to analyze the development of the phenomenon, a phenomenon that probably more than anything else damaged the principle of equality and uniformity of the tombstones, and will examine the way the defense establishment and the Public Council as the bodies entrusted with preserving uniformity and equality contended with the phenomenon. It emerges that there is a direct link between the quantity, size, density and the power of the embellishments on the tombstones and their immediate surroundings and the time that elapsed from the establishment of the state. In other words, as the tombstones are newer, i.e., the death of the soldier is more distant from 1948 and approaches the present, then we distinguish an increase in the amount of the embellishments, their density and their power. The wreaths that relatives laid from the creation of the state on the tombstones that were just laid on the fresh graves⁶ were replaced by flowerpots and planters, with sowing and planting,⁷ and the more time passed the size of these increased. At the same time families began laying vases and flower boxes in proximity to the tombstones, as well as planting trees and bushes of various types. A process of “creeping annexation” and “takeover” of the tombstone by the parents and even a “territorial struggle” that began developing between relatives whose dear ones were buried side by side over the common surroundings became apparent in this context.⁸ However, as stated above, the embellishments that any visitor to a military cemetery will easily identify include not only items of vegetation that are housed 5 Protocol of the Public Council meeting (above, footnote 2), p. 30, from the statement by Y. Neeman. 6 AA, file 90/72/156, Y. Dekel to the legal advisor of the Defense Ministry, 6.23.1953; ibid., file 849/73/150, the legal advisor of the defense establishment to Y. Dekel, 7.29.1953. From these sources it emerges that the placing of the wreaths was acceptable and was never prohibited by any party. 7 CZA, file 116/166, Y. Greenfield to the bereaved families, 12.26.1951. 8 See for example, SCA, High Court of Justice Deliberations file 3299/93, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 7.5.1994, p. 27.

Everyone Does as He Sees Fit 

 337

in growth media and others (although these are the dominant embellishments); but they include sundry and various objects that were placed on the tombstone that are related to the fallen soldier, the background behind his death and the yearnings of his relatives towards him, such as the symbols of his unit, along with medals, models of tanks, artillery pieces, planes and personal weaponry, shell casings, metal helmets, plaques on which poems about the fallen soldier are inscribed conveying longing for him, “receptacles” for memorial candles of various models, as well as a picture of the fallen soldier engraved in stone or photographed and placed on the tombstone.⁹ What is also striking is the process of “spatial diffusion,” in other words copying elements of embellishments that were placed on a certain tombstone or its surroundings by the “neighbors”, i.e. the relatives of the fallen soldiers whose tombstones are located near the “model” tombstone.¹⁰ A series of pictures that are presented in the collection from page 345 onwards clearly expresses the phenomenon of the embellishments that are placed by the relatives on the tombstones and their surroundings and especially the progression of the phenomenon over time. Likewise one can identify the phenomenon of “spatial diffusion” in the pictures. According to the records of the Division for Commemorating the Soldier, during the 90s about a thousand tombstones incorporating embellishments were identified,¹¹ apparently with particularly prominent embellishments. The number of the less prominent embellishments is still greater. Save for one or two cases, the stationing of the embellishments of various types not only was performed without seeking permission from the Division for Commemorating the Soldier and those responsible on its behalf for the cemeteries, but the parents sensed no need to request such permission – either with regard to the vegetation or regarding other articles some of which have been noted above. This is most prominent in comparison with the issue of the inscription that remained generally uniform. It is possible that the reason for the distinction is that the manufacture of the tombstones and the inscriptions on them was the work of the Division for Commemorating the Soldier, disagreement between the family and the Ministry of Defense regarding the text of the inscription led to a delay in placing the pillow,¹²

9 See for example the protocol of the Public Council meeting (above, footnote 3), p. 25, statement by Z. Puterman; A. Lurie, “A Small Grand Piano on the Grave and a Few Additional Words of Farewell,” Ha’aretz, 9.14.1994. 10 See the series of pictures from p. 345 onwards. 11 For allusions to this see above, in footnote 8, but from a survey of the cemeteries and from the collection of photographs the things can be clearly seen. 12 AA, file 399/85/229, E. Rubinstein to H. Yisraeli, 12.1.1975.

338 

 Everyone Does as He Sees Fit

and changing the tombstone without authorization was prohibited in the Law of Military Cemeteries and a person transgressing it was liable to penalties. For that reason it was difficult to implement changes in the inscription without the authorization of the Defense Ministry or without receiving relief from the High Court of Justice (although this was not totally preventable, because as we shall see below, there were parents who replaced the pillows). In contradistinction placing embellishments of various types on the tombstones and their surroundings, such as planting trees and bushes on the tombstone and its surroundings, was not accompanied by noteworthy problems, the authorities during the first stages of the phenomenon did not prevent it and when it increased there were enough existing precedents that frustrated prohibitions on the continuation of the phenomenon. At a more advanced stage the removal of the embellishments by the authorities became most problematic, and this we shall see in detail below. Furthermore, the Law of Military Cemeteries did not address – either in primary legislation or in the ordinances – the issue of the embellishments, despite the severe impairments to the principle of uniformity and equality; no amendments were introduced to the law over the years in this regard, although the problem only became further exacerbated, and although from time to time the Division for a Commemorating the Soldier as well as members of the Public Council raised the issue of the need for amending the law on this matter.¹³ It further emerges that while it was possible to rely on paragraph 8 of the Law of Military Cemeteries that declares “The minister of defense is entitled to legislate ordinances regarding arrangements in the military cemeteries; in consideration of the aforesaid ordinances, a duly authorized body can issue instructions regarding the local arrangements at a particular military cemetery”¹⁴ – nevertheless this clause was never utilized to resolve the issue of the embellishments. However the matter was brought up frequently by the parents of the fallen soldiers who expressed their displeasure over the phenomenon. Since they were aware of the depth of the feelings connected with building the embellishments, these parents tried, as did the Yad Labanim organization and the Public Council for Commemorating the Soldier, to deal with the issue amicably by information and persuasion. As we shall see below, handling the embellishments in this manner yielded only minor success. The origin of the phenomenon that found expression in planting and sowing goes back as long as the existence of the military cemeteries and military tombstones. Already at the close of 1951 the head of the Yad Labanim organization 13 See for example SCA, High Court of Justice file 3299/93, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 5.29.1994, p. 26, the statement by M.A. Cohen. 14 See the law in Official Documents: The Statute Book, No. 56, 8.1.1950, p. 259.

Everyone Does as He Sees Fit 

 339

reported with distaste on the “isolated cases where the parents themselves plant vegetation on the graves of their beloved.” In order to preserve uniformity and equality in the military cemeteries he asked them to desist from continuing this as well as to uproot what was already planted and sowed. And this is what he had to write on this matter: The aspiration and goal of the defenders and fighters, when they gave their life in defense of the nation and the establishment of the state, was uniform. True fraternity governed their relations and the love for Israel bonded them together… the bereaved families fully desire to remain faithful to the spirit of their beloved and this obligates them to most strictly ensure that the spirit of unity of the sons who fell should also permeate the places where they found eternal repose – in the military cemeteries: total uniformity of style, regarding everything, tombstones, planting, sowing and everything without discrimination and any deviation… Those isolated cases where the parents themselves planted vegetation on the graves of their beloved – are an unfortunate misunderstanding and are opposed to the general objective. And there are cases where the form of planting is unsuitable to the general and uniform shape. In general it is not a Jewish custom to plant trees and bushes on the graves. The Yad Labanim center is convinced that in the future the serious reasons enumerated will prevent the bereaved families from performing on their own accord any activity in the military cemeteries. And those who due to misunderstanding have already planted trees or vegetation should uproot them.¹⁵

The common phenomenon not only did not disappear but increased over the years. On the tombstones of those who fell in the Six-Day War the phenomenon of the embellishments was already most apparent, and it increased and grew more blatant in the tombstones that were placed on the graves of those soldiers who fell in two periods: during the War of Attrition (1968-1970) and the period of the Yom Kippur War and later.¹⁶ The War of Attrition (and not as it is commonly believed, the Yom Kippur War or the Peace for Galilee Operation) is therefore the decisive turning point in what can be termed the “subdivision of the embellishments into periods.” In March 1969, Reuven Mass, a member of the Public Council, related during a meeting of the Public Council that he had recently visited the cemetery in Haifa “[and] I was shocked by what I saw – there are artificial flowers there, chests of pictures.” He further added: “How can one permit this, the Defense Ministry should see to it that just as they saw to a uniform tombstone there should also be a uniform appearance.” The current head of the Division for Commemorating the Soldier, Yehuda Meron, reinforced Mass’s position on the subject and said: “In the section from the Six-Day War, there were families who brought clothes 15 See Y. Greenfield’s letter (above, footnote 7) – the source of the citations. See also CZA, file 849/73/150, M. Hager to Y. Dekel, 30.11.1954; ibid., Y. Dekel to M. Hager, 12.6.1954. 16 DMA, folder 6824, file 911, S. Seri to members of the Public Council, 6.16.1975. See also in the continuation.

340 

 Everyone Does as He Sees Fit

to the grave.” However his words to the council members conveyed a message of impotence regarding the phenomenon when he said that “we overcame the issue of the text on the tombstones but on this matter [embellishments] at the moment there is nothing we can do, maybe in another two years.”¹⁷ In mid-1971, the issue of the embellishments was already the major topic in the deliberations of the Public Council. The members of the Rehabilitation Branch and the Division for Commemorating the Soldier reported to the council members about “a problem of disuniformity of graves throughout the country, particularly in the new sections. There is a problem of changing the shape of the graves by stationing lanterns [receptacles of various types for the memorial candles], statues and various planters and pictures. This creates an unfavorable impression on the external visitor… the blight has spread because at the beginning they did not pay attention. There are cemeteries where the matter is more blatant and there are those where the matter is less obvious.” The members of the division added further that just as the military burial the world over is distinguished by uniformity, thus the State of Israel honors the fallen by preserving the principle of uniformity, and they solicited the advice of the council members regarding the proper handling of the serious problems. These sought to get a firsthand impression of the phenomenon and went out to visit a number of military cemeteries.¹⁸ In Haifa they encountered in the “Six-Day War section flowerpots interspersed including cement cast flowerpots as well as lanterns that were placed on the graves. A striking impairment to the uniformity of the graves was apparent in the section where the dead from the War of Attrition were buried. On some of the graves flowerpots were constructed adjacent to the grave, lanterns were positioned, shell casings of artillery shells, here and there are symbols of the units and pictures of the fallen”; at the Kiryat Shaul cemetery – “in the Six-Day War section on some of the graves there is an exaggerated number of flowerpots and here and there artificial flowers, artillery shell casings and isolated cases of lanterns on the grave”; in Hadera – “on some of the graves lanterns are stationed, near some of the graves flowerpots are built. On one of the graves there is a statue of a violin while on four graves there is molded plaster in the shape of an open book”; and in Netanya – “the problematic section is the area of the graves since the Six-Day War. On most of the graves lanterns are affixed, and on some there are flowerpots as well as artificial flowers.”¹⁹ 17 RMA, summary of the Public Council meeting, 3.10.1969, p. 4, from the statements by R. Mass and Y. Meron. 18 AA, file 2849/27/166, summary of the Public Council meeting, 6.2.1971, the citation is from the statement by the head of the Rehabilitation Branch, A. Fink. 19 Ibid., tour by the Public Council subcommittee of the military cemeteries, 7.29.1971.

Everyone Does as He Sees Fit 

 341

Members of the council disagreed over how much forgiveness and tolerance should be extended to the phenomenon. The difference of opinion on this matter between the council veterans and the new members was striking. The veterans were vociferous in their opposition to the phenomenon. Reuven Mass, for example, who served consecutively on the council from its establishment, argued vigorously that “throughout all the years the council members were guided by a single policy line, namely uniformity. Council members did not give in to any pressure applied by the bereaved parents and installed uniform tombstones and set texts. Therefore I can say that here as well we can do the same thing, explain to the parents that all tombstones must be uniform. I propose that the council should approach the municipalities and any other public place and strive for the uniformity of the graves... it is a mistake on the part of the Division for Commemorating the Soldier to allow what was done in Haifa.”²⁰ Shimon Kushnir who likewise served on the council from its establishment argued as well that “one must treat this severely, resort to the communications media and condemn the disgrace and discrimination.”²¹ As opposed to the council veterans the new members were much more moderate; they displayed an attitude of forgiveness and understanding of the phenomenon and even attempted to attach indulgent explanations. These centered on the need to allow expression for feelings of private, individual pain and recognition of the variant expressions of care for the grave and tombstone on the part of different communities and cultures in the Jewish world that had immigrated to Israel and had not previously belonged to the family of bereavement. For that reason council member Dr. Yahil “objects to touching this sensitive point. He understands the psyche of parts of the people who in this manner provide expression to their pain and one should not oppose them on this matter… there is a long and tiresome way to go on till the customs will be united and the entire people can express its pain in a uniform fashion… order and aesthetics is a secondary issue when weighed against the great psychological damage that can be caused to these families, and one should not elevate it above the feelings of the families...²² He warns against coercive handling of this problem because the unity of the people is more important… and the bereaved families public today is more heterogeneous and has different customs as opposed to what existed 23 years

20 The citations are from the statement by R. Mass in the summary of the Public Council meeting, 6.2.1971 (above, footnote 18), and in DMA, folder 2319, file 2260, summary of the Public Council meeting, 9.14.1971. 21 Summary of the Public Council meeting, 6.2.1971 (above, footnote 18), statement by S. Kushnir. 22 Ibid., statement by H. Yahil.

342 

 Everyone Does as He Sees Fit

ago.”²³ Rivka Guber likewise emphasized that “the question is a delicate one because there is a matter of ethnicity… [and] she recommends having it explained by clergymen… [and] introduce ethnic representation to the council.”²⁴ Yeshayahu Frischman opined “it is unjust to the families that they don’t allow the families to express what they feel freely.”²⁵ Kinarti echoed this: “He argues that the uniformity is maintained in the graves in the stone, in the method of placing the graves and in the text. But afterwards one should grant some privacy, and not insist on uniform vases.”²⁶ But in any case, the general opinion that crystallized as a result of that discussion was that on the one hand one should work to preserve the uniformity of the tombstones and secure an end to the embellishment phenomenon or at least minimize it, but on the other hand it would be proper to do so purely through information and persuading the families to remove the embellishments.²⁷ There were those who argued that “extreme symbols such as statues and pictures should be eradicated,”²⁸ but they too accepted the majority opinion that one should not involve the authorities (the Division for Commemorating the Soldier and the local and regional councils) to remove the embellishments.²⁹ The recommendation that took shape following that discussion “to introduce ethnic representation on the council” was adopted,³⁰ and likewise it was decided to establish a special subcommittee that would formulate an information and persuasion policy.³¹ In autumn 1971, the subcommittee summed up its deliberations with the following recommendations: “A. The Division for Commemorating the Soldier at 23 Summary of the Public Council meeting, 9.14.1971 (above, footnote 20), statement by H. Yahil. 24 Summary the Public Council meeting, 6.2.1971 (above, footnote 18), the statement by R. Guber. 25 Ibid., the statement by Y. Frischman. 26 Summary of the Public Council meeting, 9.14.1971 (above, footnote 20), statement by S. Kinarti. 27 DMA, folder 2319, file 2260, S. Seri to members of the council, 9.23.1971, included are recommendations by the council’s subcommittee regarding the uniformity of the graves and appended is a letter from Chief Military Chaplain M. Piron to the bereaved families regarding the supplements. See also the statement by H. Yahil in the summary of the Public Council meeting on 9.14.1971 (above, footnote 20), who emphasized that “the letter to the bereaved parents must be couched in a moderate and paternal fashion.” 28 Summary the Public Council meeting, 9.14.1971 (above, footnote 20), from the statement by S. Kinarti. 29 See the letter of S. Seri (above, footnote 16). 30 See above, footnote 24. 31 See above, footnotes 16, 20, 27, as well as DMA, folder 7117, file 1776, S. Seri to the office of the defense minister, 6.5.1973, enclosed are the Public Council decisions on 12.20.1972 (there is no doubt that the date is erroneous and it should be 9.14.1971, as it emerges from Seri’s letter above, footnote 27).

Everyone Does as He Sees Fit 

 343

the Defense Ministry should issue directives to its workers at the cemeteries, to prevent impairment to the uniformity of the graves, and do so via information while avoiding a clash with the bereaved families. B. The chairman of the Public Council will send a letter to the relevant bereaved families explaining the importance of preserving the uniformity of the graves. C. In accordance with what is agreed upon with the Army chief rabbi, a letter to families will be signed by Rabbi Piron explaining the issue from the standpoint of Jewish religious law and the Jewish spirit. D. One should draw a distinction in the practical handling of this matter between blatant objects, such as statues and pictures, and objects that are less prominent such as flowerpots and vases. E. To conduct individual persuasion meetings with the participation of local bodies, representatives of the council as well as Yad Labanim.” The council plenum found these recommendations acceptable.³² Rabbi Piron’s letter was an important component in the information and persuasion offensive. The Division for Commemorating the Soldier and the Public Council would repeatedly make copious use of this letter even after the 70s, and it would be appropriate to cite the letter verbatim: Dearest bereaved families, I allow myself to approach you, dear families, in order to raise in these following lines a tragic and painful issue out of a strong sense of fondness and respect for you. We recently witnessed the phenomenon that on many graves of our beloved may the Lord avenge them who fell so this nation may live and the homeland may be preserved, you have installed various appurtenances such as flowerpots, vases, receptacles for memorial candles, pictures etc., with the ostensive purpose of beautifying the tombstones of our holy beloved, to add layers of perpetuation and commemoration. This approach by the bereaved families which undoubtedly stems from the depths of a wounded and aggrieved heart is quite comprehensible, to the extent that we are at all capable of measuring and understanding the grief of parents, widows and orphans. However it has an unsavory aspect and it even constitutes a severe affront to some of the sacred principles upon which the existence of the Jewish nation is posited. Uniformity and unity are concrete foundations in the Jewish national outlook, and our sages frequently lauded them and emphasized their vital importance for the sound and total existence of the people. This fact is clarified in many texts of both the Talmudic and Midrashic literature of yore. These ideas were even developed and expanded over generations and were always the centerpiece of our people’s expectations and aspirations. It is a lamentable fact but apparent to the eye that the desire to beautify one grave among the graves of our martyrs makes it stand out among the others and creates a contrast, sometimes a very sharp one among adjacent tombstones. And indeed our heroes, the IDF fallen, are all dear to us in an equal manner, we do not wish and it is even prohibited to discriminate and distinguish between blood and what will happen if there is a tombstone

32 See above, footnote 27.

344 

 Everyone Does as He Sees Fit

where, for various reasons, there are not the loved ones who are able to take care of it and visit it? Do you not feel that our martyrs fell together, gave their lives together, and the background to their activity was the unity of the people? Furthermore, Jewish religious law does not encourage activity to beautify tombstones and graves. The obligation is to establish a tombstone, however, regarding the attempt to beautify and expand, we find a significant statement in the words of Rabbi Shimon Ben Gamliel who concludes: “One does not create a special mark on the graves for the righteous. Their words are their memorial.” There is no need and it is undesirable to multiply the decorations and the like on the graves of our beloved martyrs, because their words are their memorial. I am sure that you will understand the importance of my call and will accept in good spirits and a willing heart my request whose sole and only purpose is to glorify the honor of our martyrs may the Lord avenge their blood and to honor their memory among the Jewish people forever.³³

The decisions of the special subcommittee, that were endorsed by the council plenum, as well as Rabbi Piron’s letter, are instructive regarding the resolute decision of the council and the division not to clash with the relatives on the issue of the embellishments and the expectation on their part that these would be removed by the relatives themselves. It was not by accident that the subcommittee decided in paragraph D. to its recommendations that “One should draw a distinction in the practical handling of this matter between blatant objects, such as statues and pictures, and objects that are less prominent such as flowerpots and vases,” but refrained from deciding what practical treatment would take place, if at all, when one dealt with “blatant objects.”³⁴ One can further learn from these matters and from additional sources³⁵ on the components of the embellishments in that period: there were artificial flowers, clothes, statues, receptacles for the memorial candles in their various styles, open books crafted of marble, pictures, flowerpots and vases, metal chains, military equipment appurtenances, etc. Apparently, and as emerges from the pictures from that period, the role of the flowerpots and vases among the embellishments was dominant.³⁶ Subsequently in this chapter we will observe that this composition of articles somewhat differed from the composition of the articles that are being placed on the graves and their surroundings in the last 20 years, and in other words – the nature of the tapestry of embellishments is a derivative of the zeitgeist.

33 See the letter by the chief military chaplain (above, footnote 27). 34 P. Yaron, chairman of the Public Council’s Tombstone Subcommittee during the years 19741997, oral testimony, Kfar Saba, 2.5.2003. 35 See above, footnote 16. 36 The sources of the pictures are the RMA and the JNFP.

Changes in the Appearance of the Military Cemeteries 

 345

Changes in the Appearance of the Military Cemeteries and the Military Tombstone, from 1948 until Today

Fig. 46: Appearance of Mount Herzl Military Cemetery at the beginning of the 1950s: temporary signs before laying the pillows. Source: Reuven Mass Private Archives.

Fig. 47: Appearance of Nahlat Yitzhak Military Cemetery at the beginning of the 1950s: temporary signs before laying the pillows. Source: National Photo Collection.

346 

 Everyone Does as He Sees Fit

Fig. 48: Appearance of Mount Herzl Military Cemetery in 1957: uniformity and equality. Source: Jewish National Fund Photographic Archives.

Fig. 49: Appearance of Mount Herzl Military Cemetery in 1964: uniformity and equality. Source: Jewish National Fund Photographic Archives.

Changes in the Appearance of the Military Cemeteries 

Fig. 50: Appearance of Mount Herzl Military Cemetery in 1969: uniformity and equality. Source: Jewish National Fund Photographic Archives.

Fig. 51: Appearance of the plot for the fallen of the War of Independence in Kiryat Shaul Military Cemetery, photographed in 2002: uniformity and equality. Source: Author’s photographs.

 347

348 

 Everyone Does as He Sees Fit

Fig. 52: Appearance of the plot for the fallen of the War of Independence in Rosh Pina Military Cemetery, photographed in 2002: uniformity and equality (In preparation for Remembrance Day, IDF soldiers place flowers and flags on the graves of fallen Israeli soldiers; photographed a day after Independence Day). Source: Author’s photographs.

Fig. 53: Appearance of the plot for the fallen of the War of Independence in Kiryat Anavim Military Cemetery, photographed in 2002: prominence of uniformity. Source: Author’s photographs.

Changes in the Appearance of the Military Cemeteries 

Fig. 54: Appearance of the plot for the 1950s fallen soldiers in Kiryat Shaul Military Cemetery, photographed in 2002: uniformity is prominent. Some of the vases remained empty. Source: Author’s photographs.

Fig. 55: Appearance of the plot for the 1960s fallen soldiers in Kiryat Shaul Military Cemetery, photographed in 2002: uniformity is prominent. Some of the vases remained empty. Source: Author’s photographs.

 349

350 

 Everyone Does as He Sees Fit

Fig. 56: Appearance of the plot for the 1960s fallen soldiers in Mount Herzl Military Cemetery, photographed in 2006: uniformity and equality are prominent. Source: Author’s photographs.

Fig. 57: Appearance of the plot for the 1970s fallen soldiers in the military cemetery in Beer Sheva, photographed in 2002: embellishments – prominence of items of vegetation. Source: Author’s photographs.

Changes in the Appearance of the Military Cemeteries 

Fig. 58: Appearance of the plot for the 1980s fallen soldiers in Mount Herzl Military Cemetery, photographed in 2002: embellishments – prominence of items of vegetation. Source: Author’s photographs.

Fig. 59: Appearance of the plot for the 1990s and the early 2000s fallen soldiers in the military cemetery in Holon, photographed in 2002: embellishments – prominence of garden view. Source: Author’s photographs.

 351

352 

 Everyone Does as He Sees Fit

Fig. 60: Appearance of the plot for the 1990s and the early 2000s fallen soldiers in the military cemetery in Holon, photographed in 2002: embellishments – prominence of garden view. Source: Author’s photographs.

Fig. 61: Appearance of the plot for the 1990s and the early 2000s fallen soldiers in Kiryat Shaul Military Cemetery, photographed in 2002: embellishments – prominence of garden view. Source: Author’s photographs.

Changes in the Appearance of the Military Cemeteries 

Fig. 62: Appearance of the plot for the 1990s and the early 2000s fallen soldiers in Kiryat Shaul Military Cemetery, photographed in 2006: various embellishments together with the legal inscription conveying personal expression. Source: Author’s photographs.

Fig. 63: Appearance of the plot for the early 2000s fallen soldiers in Mount Herzl Military Cemetery, photographed in 2006: prominence of garden view. Source: Author’s photographs.

 353

354 

 Everyone Does as He Sees Fit

Fig. 64: Appearance of the plot for the 1990s and the early 2000s fallen soldiers in the military cemetery in Tiberias, photographed in 2003: embellishments are fewer and less prominent than those in military cemeteries in large cities. Source: Author’s photographs.

Fig. 65: Typical embellishments in the 1950s: vegetation and flowerpots in the common area between the tombstones, Kiryat Shaul Military Cemetery, photographed in 2002. Source: Author’s photographs.

Changes in the Appearance of the Military Cemeteries 

 355

Fig. 66: Typical embellishments in the 1970s: flowerpots and addition of a personal inscription by the family, military cemetery in Tiberias, photographed in 2003. Source: Author’s photographs.

Fig. 67: Typical embellishments in the 1970s: personal inscription by the family and portrait of the fallen soldier, military cemetery in Beer Sheva, photographed in 2002. Source: Author’s photographs.

356 

 Everyone Does as He Sees Fit

Fig. 68: Typical embellishments in the 1980s: personal inscription by the family, military cemetery in Holon, photographed in 2002. Source: Author’s photographs.

Fig. 69: Typical embellishments in the 1980s: vegetation, personal inscription and illustration by the family, military cemetery in Holon, photographed in 2002. Source: Author’s photographs.

Changes in the Appearance of the Military Cemeteries 

 357

Fig. 70: Typical embellishments in the 1980s: vegetation and military items, photographed in 2002. Source: Author’s photographs.

Fig. 71: Typical embellishments in the 1990s and the early 2000s: the thick vegetation covering the tombstone, Kiryat Shaul Military Cemetery, photographed in 2006. Source: Author’s photographs.

358 

 Everyone Does as He Sees Fit

Fig. 72: Typical embellishments in the 1990s and the early 2000s: the thick vegetation covering the tombstone, Mount Herzl Military Cemetery, photographed in 2006. Source: Author’s photographs.

Fig. 73: Typical embellishments in the 1990s and the early 2000s: personal inscription by the family alongside the words of a well-known poem, Kiryat Shaul Military Cemetery, photographed in 2002. Source: Author’s photographs.

Changes in the Appearance of the Military Cemeteries 

 359

Fig. 74: Typical embellishments in the 1990s and the early 2000s: personal inscription by the family, military cemetery in Haifa, photographed in 2003. Source: Author’s photographs.

Fig. 75: Typical embellishments in the 1990s and the early 2000s: various embellishments together with the legal inscription conveying personal expression, Kiryat Shaul Military Cemetery, photographed in 2006. Source: Author’s photographs.

360 

 Everyone Does as He Sees Fit

Fig. 76: Typical embellishments in the early 2000s: various individual items alongside the legal inscription conveying personal expression, Kiryat Shaul Military Cemetery, photographed in 2006. Source: Author’s photographs.

Fig. 77: Typical embellishments in the 1990s and the early 2000s: various personal items, Kiryat Shaul Military Cemetery, photographed in 2006. Source: Author’s photographs.

Changes in the Appearance of the Military Cemeteries 

Fig. 78: Typical embellishments in the 1990s and the early 2000s: photograph of the fallen soldier, Kiryat Shaul Military Cemetery, photographed in 2006. Source: Author’s photographs.

Fig. 79: Typical embellishments in the early 2000s: photographs of the fallen soldier, Mount Herzl Military Cemetery, photographed in 2006. Source: Author’s photographs.

 361

362 

 Everyone Does as He Sees Fit

Fig. 80: Typical embellishments in the 1990s and the early 2000s: portrait of the fallen soldier and personal inscription by the family (“my son you are my life”), military cemetery in Holon, photographed in 2002. Source: Author’s photographs.

Fig. 81: Typical embellishments in the 1990s and the early 2000s: portrait of the fallen soldier and items relating to his military background, Kiryat Shaul Military Cemetery, photographed in 2006. Source: Author’s photographs.

Changes in the Appearance of the Military Cemeteries 

Fig. 82: Typical embellishments in the early 2000s: use of the common area between the tombstones for laying embellishments, Mount Herzl Military Cemetery, photographed in 2006. Source: Author’s photographs.

Fig. 83: Copying elements of embellishments, military cemetery in Dimona, photographed in 2003. Source: Author’s photographs.

 363

364 

 Everyone Does as He Sees Fit

Fig. 84: Copying elements of embellishments (compare the two photographs), Kiryat Shaul Military Cemetery, photographed in 2002. Source: Author’s photographs.

Changes in the Appearance of the Military Cemeteries 

Fig. 85: The fresh graves and the tombstones being laid for the fallen soldiers in the Second Lebanon War in summer 2006, Mount Herzl Military Cemetery, photographed August 21, 2006 . Source: Author’s photographs.

Fig. 86: Plot for the fallen soldiers in the Second Lebanon War in summer 2006, Mount Herzl Military Cemetery, photographed October 23, 2006; note the short time elapsing from the erection of the tombstones until the planting of vegetation and the laying of embellishments by the relatives. Source: Author’s photographs.

 365

366 

 Everyone Does as He Sees Fit

Fig. 87: The description of circumstances of death on the graves of the fallen soldiers in the Second Lebanon War is uniform: “Fell in battle in south Lebanon.” The word “war” does not appear. Only on March 19, 2007 did the government of Israel declare that there had been a war in the north during the summer of 2006. The inscription of the tombstones has been changed accordingly. Source: Author’s photographs.

In any event, the persuasion and information activities in the early 70s had an effect, as the director of the Division for Commemorating the Soldier and the deputy head of the Rehabilitation Branch during those years, Shalom Seri, reported: “and indeed in the wake of the information efforts the tendency of parents to add various appurtenances on top of the grave has been checked”³⁷ – but this would not be for long. In the wake of the Yom Kippur War the phenomenon of embellishments on the tombstones of those who fell in the war again became widespread. Seri wrote in summer 1975 in an attempt to explain the outbreak of the phenomenon: “After the Yom Kippur War the custom again became widespread and in the general foul atmosphere that prevailed after the war our information exerted only a limited effect. The various methods of persuasion have an effect among the parents only for a short while after the disaster. And the degree of success achieved by our information is influenced to a large extent by the educational level of the parents or their psychological condition.”³⁸ For the first time we hear from Seri that due to the renewed outbreak of the phenome37 See the letter by S. Seri (above, footnote 16). 38 Ibid.

Changes in the Appearance of the Military Cemeteries 

 367

non workers of the division endeavored to remove “the various embellishments that the parents added to the graves, but that in some cases we were forced to submit to the parents who began shouting, issuing threats and applying pressure on the gardeners in the cemeteries.”³⁹ Seri, who also received approaches from aggrieved parents to prevent such deviations,⁴⁰ was adamant in his opinion that it was necessary to halt the phenomenon that marred the uniformity of the graves, and this after he had already made peace with the fact that flowers and vases did not constitute a deviation:⁴¹ “With all the consideration for the sentimental motives of the family to express their pain by excessive tending of the graves of their beloved, there is a necessity by all the bodies who have an influence on the bereaved families to adopt a coordinated action and restrict to the extent possible impairment to the uniformity of the graves. Likewise one should examine if one should not enact legal ordinances that would prevent such partisan activities on this matter.”⁴² Nevertheless, apparently given the clashes with the parents he believed that one should employ the peaceable approach of information and persuasion “while refraining from a clash with the parents.”⁴³ The senior echelons of the Defense Ministry including the minister, Shimon Peres, thought likewise and this was also the position of the council members, who displayed great sensitivity about any action that was likely to result in a clash with the families. Explicit directives in this vein were given to the Division for Commemorating the Soldier.⁴⁴ The information activities included a recirculation in mid-1975 of the letter from Rabbi Piron from the end of 1971⁴⁵ and inviting the bereaved families for meetings with Yad Labanim representatives, the military rabbinate and the Public Council to “exchange opinions how one can guarantee proper maintenance and maximum uniformity of the graves and prevent unusual initiatives that create discrimination between one dead soldier and his comrades.”⁴⁶ However, already after the first meeting, given the severe protests against the objective of the meeting, it was decided to forgo similar meetings.⁴⁷ There were parents who reacted bitterly to the letter by Rabbi Piron itself and the invitation to the meet39 Ibid. 40 DMA, folder 6824, file 911, S. Seri to H. Yisraeli, 6.30.1975. 41 Ibid. 42 See the letter by S. Seri (above, footnote 16). 43 Ibid. 44 Ibid.; DMA, folder 6824, file 911, S. Peres to Y. Ronen, 7.8.1975; ibid., Y. Ronen to S. Peres, 6.25.1975; P. Yaron, oral testimony (above, footnote 34). 45 See the letter by Y. Ronen (above, footnote 44), enclosed is the letter by Rabbi Piron. 46 DMA, folder 6824, file 911, S. Seri to the bereaved families, 6.15.1975 – the source of the citation. See also above, footnote 16. 47 See the letter by S. Peres (above, footnote 44) and the letter by S. Seri (above, footnote 40).

368 

 Everyone Does as He Sees Fit

ings. And here is what Yitzhak Ronen, a bereaved parent from the Yom Kippur War, wrote the defense minister, although he and his wife actually “do not belong to the category of those who ‘beautify’ the grave of their son”:⁴⁸ “While visiting my son at various times I encountered at the place many mothers whose entire lives (or maybe what has remained of their lives) apparently revolve near the grave of their son. They visit him, they plant things on his grave and alongside it, perform weeding, engage in watering, etc. I encountered in the cemetery seemingly tough men (one generally encounters them only on the Sabbath) as they tend their son’s grave. Apparently the handling and care have become part of their lives and this you want to take away from them?”⁴⁹ The information and persuasion activity therefore waned. Likewise the Division for Commemorating the Soldier refrained from taking actions that were unsatisfactory to the parents who erected the embellishments.⁵⁰ In this way the establishment made peace with the phenomenon, preferring to honor the sentiments of the parents not only over the principle of preserving uniformity but also in preference to the sentiments of the fallen soldiers’ families who favored preserving the principle of uniformity and were aggrieved by the damage to this value. By adopting this stance the establishment removed any barrier to the spread and entrenchment of this phenomenon in subsequent years, and this indeed only gathered further impetus. Once the establishment desisted from information and persuasion activities those bereaved parents who were pained by the impairment to the uniformity of the graves and military tombstone attempted to fill the breach. Thus for example Y. Dimanshtein wrote the following, under the title “Decorations On Soldiers’ Graves” in the bereaved families house organ Siah Shakulim (Discourse of the Bereaved) on the eve of the Jewish new year 5738 (1977): The person who visits the grave sites of the soldiers occasionally encounters graves that were decorated by various embellishments. The inner drive of the parents to give their son everything is fully comprehensible. What they have not managed to bestow upon him during his life. Where else therefore can they give expression to their devotion to their son, where can they glorify him if not on his grave – for what has remained save for the grave? But the decorations and the adornments on the IDF grave are perceived by the visitor with a jaundiced eye. Are these soldiers’ graves? Are the parents going to engage in a competition to demonstrate publicly whose son was most dear? How do the parents arrogate to themselves the right to violate their sons’ fraternity of combat? At one of the cemeteries in Israel’s North, one of the branches with which I’m in contact, we encounter the aforesaid phenomenon on the graves of the soldiers. We have had a number of personal contacts with 48 See the letter by Y. Ronen (above, footnote 44). 49 Ibid. 50 See the letter by S. Peres (above, footnote 44).

Changes in the Appearance of the Military Cemeteries 

 369

the bereaved parents. Orally, face-to-face, everything that could be said was said in friendship, tolerance and love. We discussed the fact that our sons served shoulder to shoulder, they fought as equals, both the private and the officer. They fell – someone in an accident, someone in a shelling, someone in battle, or in the midst of an act of heroism. The soldiers were equals in their lives: they ate the same food, wore the same uniform; they performed drills and guard duty; they went out to battle and danger together. They were brought for burial in the same military cemetery to a uniform grave, the same grave for a private or a general, for the rich and for the poor. We pointed to the fact that the decorations on the grave contradict Jewish tradition and mentioned the words of Shimon Ben Gamliel (the Jerusalem Talmud, Shekalim 47) that “one does not make a special mark on the grave.” In a letter of summation we searched for a formulation that spoke from heart-to-heart and refrained from anything that would invite opposition on a matter that the bereaved are so sensitive to. Are we not dealing with a change of pattern in thought and action that they have already adopted for themselves. This is what we wrote at the close of the letter: “therefore we are approaching you with entreaty and pleas, consider all that was said in the letter and you yourselves remove the decorations and adornments that you have placed on the grave of your beloved… of blessed memory. We can only ask and plead, we will not do anything by ourselves, because we respect your sentiments, as we hope that you respect the sentiments of others, who are your brothers in fate.” The results were satisfactory.⁵¹

In autumn 1983 we already learn about “trees 2 to 2 ½ meters in height” at the military cemetery in Kiryat Shaul “that were planted by the families… today this is growing into a crown of beauty, but it is destroying the graves.”⁵² At the same time the Defense Ministry mulled the option of awarding the Public Council powers of decision,⁵³ and from the council’s side the question arose of formulating enforcement directives in the law that would prevent inter alia the phenomenon of embellishments such as the trees and the damages they were causing. In response and in total opposition to the position of the council chairman the current legal advisor of the Rehabilitation Branch, Naava Rashba, made it clear that “the issue of enforcement was sensitive… when we sat down to formulate [the amendments to the law] we felt that this would have a more spiritual character than a character of law, in other words to promulgate criminal sanctions amid all these so decorously and daintily formulated matters seemed to us a bit grating and somewhat anarchistic, and therefore we ignored the paragraph on punishment.”⁵⁴ As in the past, due to the deep sensitivity, the Defense Ministry did not allow itself even to create tools in the event of heaven forefend an eventual conflict with the families 51 The house organ Discourse of the Bereaved, Rosh Hashana edition, 5738 (1977), p. 5. 52 DMA, folder 4939, file 4, protocol of the Public Council’s Permanent Committee meeting, 9.14.1983, from a statement by Council Chairman H. Adar. 53 See above, pp. 20-21. 54 DMA, ibid., protocol of the Public Council meeting, 10.30.1983, pp. 6-7, from a statement by N. Rashba.

370 

 Everyone Does as He Sees Fit

on the issue of the embellishments. This policy would continue to be adopted by the ministry subsequently as well, even when the extent of the price to be paid for this was clear, including the tremendous damage to uniformity and equality and the sentiments of the parents who did not take part in aggravating the phenomenon of the embellishments. The issue recurred again in the joint discussions of the council and Yad Labanim, and it was again decided to work via information. And thus Moshe Netzer, the chairman of the Yad Labanim organization, turned to the bereaved families on the pages of Discourse of the Bereaved in the Memorial Day issue of 5744 (1984) with the following words: Dear families: The grave of a fallen soldier in the wars of Israel is one of the ways that the country has to commemorate his memory. In the military cemetery there is a corner preserved for everyone of us where we commune with our beloved who fell in Israel’s battles. The state sees to the character and quality of the cemetery and seeks to preserve the appearance and the uniformity of the graves and tombstones. The uniform dimensions and the uniform appearance of the grave and tombstone symbolize the egalitarian approach – an essential foundation of our society, in showing appreciation for the greatest sacrifice a living person can make. We can assist those who take care of the cemetery, to nurture it and preserve its character by maintaining the appearance of the grave of our beloved and by refraining from deviations that injure adjacent graves and tombstones and the uniformity of the graves. The cemetery creates an encounter between the graves of all members of the bereaved families. This encounter obligates us to respect each other and consider the desires of others for our sake and in order to honor the memory of our beloved.⁵⁵

In practice nothing changed, and the phenomenon just intensified further. The hands of the Division for Commemorating the Soldier were powerless due to the policy of the senior echelons of the ministry, but the council and its committees continued to seek ways to halt the phenomenon, even if only on a partial basis. The State Comptroller as well noted the inability of the Division for Commemorating the Soldier to preserve the uniform appearance of the military cemeteries. In early 1985 the Tombstone Subcommittee recommended – with the defense minister’s approval in principle – posting signs in the military cemeteries prohibiting the planting of trees, sowing vegetation and placing objects on the tombstones and in their vicinity. However it then became clear that one could not place signs without a legal basis. The legal recommendation was to exploit paragraph 8a to

55 The house organ Discourse of the Bereaved, Memorial Day issue, 1984, p. 35. Appended to the article was a picture of a date palm planted in the cemetery that marred the tombstone and the general appearance.

Changes in the Appearance of the Military Cemeteries 

 371

the law according to which “the defense minister is permitted to enact ordinances regarding the arrangements in the military cemeteries.”⁵⁶ In other words, the first ordinances after 35 years following the promulgation of the law were intended to deal with an ordinance with which the public, as had become increasingly apparent, could not put up. One way or another, in March 1985 the legal advisor of the Rehabilitation Branch passed on the draft of the ordinances for the minister’s authorization in the following language: “1. No person may plant trees or sow plants in the area of the military cemetery. 2. A person may not install fixtures or place marble or any object whatsoever either near the tombstones or in the area of the military cemetery.”⁵⁷ But then it emerged that Defense Minister Yitzhak Rabin had backtracked and he would not sign the ordinances.⁵⁸ He was insistent that any action that would lead to a physical confrontation with the bereaved families was wrong. The council for its part understood “that the Defense Ministry is not prepared… to act with greater severity in order to remove the eyesores from the location, so we put the matter aside and we did not touch this matter.”⁵⁹ A year and a half later, in October 1986, the issue again arose in the meeting of the council with Defense Minister Rabin. “If you visit the military cemeteries,” Chairman Haim Adar opened, “you’ll see that in a large portion of the cemeteries, uniformity is far removed. There are flowerpots, there are balls, there are all sorts of things. Matters have reached such a pass in Tel Aviv that there are trees that have matured and destroyed a tombstone. And the family on no account is prepared to agree to the tree’s removal… I know that we are dealing with a very difficult matter, a question of sentiments and beyond. And we’ll have to give our attention to this as well.”⁶⁰ The defense minister preferred not to address the issue and focused his statement at that meeting on his reasons for dropping the commemorative project at Har Eitan.⁶¹ The council members again raised their old proposals to solve the problem via information, by letters and by inviting the relatives who deviated from the uniformity for a chat with the council. With some 56 DMA, folder 4939, file 4, N. Schayek to H. Yisraeli, 1.17.1985; ibid., N. Schayek to N. Pearlman, 2.20.1985; ibid., N. Schayek to H. Yisraeli, 12.20.1985; ibid., from D. Bar Tikva to A. Fink, 12.16.1985. And see paragraph 8a to the law (above, footnote 14). 57 DMA (above, footnote 56), N. Pearlman to N. Schayek, 3.4.1985, enclosed is a draft of the ordinances. 58 Ibid., H. Yisraeli to N. Schayek, 12.25.1985. 59 YLA, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 9.29.1987, p. 27, from the statement by Public Council Chairman H. Adar. 60 DMA, folder 21495, file 445, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 10.1.1986, pp. 6-7, from a statement by Public Council Chairman H. Adar. 61 See the protocol of the Public Council meeting (above, footnote 60).

372 

 Everyone Does as He Sees Fit

degree of satisfaction it was noted that in the oldest grave plots the phenomenon was disappearing: “Come to the sections from 1948, very few family members and just the parents arrive there, as for the second generation of brothers and sisters, this is really quite another matter. So first of all this problem of disuniformity naturally diminishes and will diminish still further.”⁶² But the disappearance of the phenomenon from the veteran plots could not console bereaved parents who held the values of uniformity and equality in the military cemeteries most dearly. They felt wounded to their very core by the phenomenon that gained strength without any restraints, and their despair over the possibility of moving the phenomenon began to eat away at their hearts, especially when in practice even the information activities were not renewed. And this is what GY, a bereaved father and a former military man, wrote during the latter half of 1987, in a bitter letter on the matter to Defense Minister Yitzhak Rabin, that once more conveys the depth of the problem and its complexity: I’m approaching you with a very difficult problem, that is very complex and is a human problem of the first order. I’m doing so out of a long-standing acquaintance with you… I’ve managed to know you as a person who does not evade giving an answer to the most difficult problems and as a decent person to his very core. I don’t require anything from you heaven forbid. But I’m referring to those embellishments of stone, iron and trees, that uproot tombstones and are turning other tombstones into offal because they serve as a congregation place for winged creatures who perform their excretory functions on the tombs of the sons. All this has been taking place for many years in a most brutal fashion that is simply intolerable. These embellishments are the results of the misdeeds of the bereaved parents and their relatives who treat the military cemeteries as if they were their own property and there is no one available to provide succor. It has been ordained that I shall belong to the family of bereavement since the Yom Kippur War. Just as I found it warranted to express my thanks and most sincere esteem to the Defense Ministry, the Rehabilitation Branch for the devoted and sincere care for the tombs and their surroundings, I’ve witnessed the terrible iniquity that is caused to many bereaved families as a result of the various and odd embellishments that not a few bereaved families have allowed themselves to add in the vicinity of their beloveds’ tombstone and this of course at the expense of adjacent tombstones. I myself served for quite a few years on the directorate of Yad Labanim and I tried to combat this terrible phenomenon but I failed. I will not enter into the debate about the role of Yad Labanim. In any event, the Defense Ministry unequivocally refrains at all costs from removing all these eyesores. On the path that leads to the tombstone of my son to the right of section 5, one of the bereaved parents planted a tree that leans in the direction of the path at an angle of 45° and as result every time I visit the place I’m hit on the head, this is purely intolerable. I turned to the Division for Commemorating the Soldier and they told me all sorts of things that there is no point in detailing because of their imbecility. I don’t have to handle the matter personally; this is not a private matter. No less serious, at another location, to the right of the tombstone of my son, somebody planted a giant fig tree on which 62 Ibid., pp. 10-11, from a statement by D. Giladi.

Changes in the Appearance of the Military Cemeteries 

 373

all the pigeons are nesting. When I arrive on the Sabbath eve at the location I find the head of the tombstone filled with muck that infuriates one’s heart and soul over this malicious act. I spoke there with the people in the garden, wonderful people, who are wholeheartedly pressing for someone who can stop turning the military cemeteries into a market, may God forgive me. Your honor the minister, or my friend Yitzhak, this matter cannot continue without respite. Anyone who handled the matter up to today has not earned his wage and has not done anything. Since I myself serve as a senior advisor to the IDF I of course can deal with the matter outside of the framework of my personal letter to you. I am personally acquainted with Mr…. his deputy and others. There is no doubt these are wonderful people who are performing holy work, efficiently and with loyalty that merits every thanks and recognition, but the issue of the various embellishments is apparently beyond the limits of their purview and must be addressed as quickly as possible. In the section from the Lebanon war the situation is simply astounding in light of what the bereaved parents permitted themselves to add. [It is necessary] to stop turning the area of the children’s repose into a revolting market. May the good God forgive me, and you Yitzhak Rabin as well. This is a very significant challenge that no one has managed to touch up to now, maybe you will dare and succeed, may God’s blessing be upon you as well as the blessing of the bereaved parents themselves in their vast majority.⁶³

Rabin evaded a real answer and continued to adopt the approach of sit back and do nothing while responding to GY that “due to the sensitivity of the matter and sensitivity of the parents who added the embellishments the matter isn’t all that simple.” It was not unexpected that he would try to pass responsibility on to the Public Council, while limiting in advance the framework of the solution that the latter would propose: “I’ve transferred your letter to the council members and let us hope that they’ll find a way to persuade the parents so that they will agree to remove the eyesores.” With no small degree of cynicism the current chairman of the council, Judge Adar, responded to a copy of the response letter by Rabin, that was sent for the council’s handling, saying “these are very careful words to persuade the parents that this is a correct path; but it seems to me that if we have to make a proposal then what we shall propose will highlight the entire extent of the problem.”⁶⁴ GY’s letter joined a letter that reached the council’s table at the very same time, and this time the sender was the director of Yad Labanim in Rishon Lezion reporting on what was taking place in the military section there: “I recently made a very urgent visit to our military section in Rishon Lezion and I found to my stupefication that there is an increasing number of portraits of the dead that are being hung up in this form or another in this size or another on the tombstones of the fallen and this is a cause for concern. I would be most appreciative if I 63 See the letter in the protocol of the Public Council meeting (above, footnote 59), pp. 27-29. 64 Protocol of the Public Council meeting (above, footnote 59) – the source of all the citations.

374 

 Everyone Does as He Sees Fit

could receive from you clear directives on how to address this matter and if you can also enclose a photocopy or a copy regarding the laws of commemoration at the military sections of cemeteries in the entire country.” But as we have already seen such laws of commemoration were totally nonexistent, and they still do not exist.⁶⁵ And thus the council found itself during the latter half of 1987 having again to deal with the painful and problematic and so complex issue of the embellishments. The council members were united that there was no room for embellishments in the military cemeteries and definitely one should remove all hazards and trees that harmed the tombstones. But it was also clear to the council that it had to deal with the subject with much greater sensitivity and consider in every action both the sentiments of the “transgressors” and those transgressed against and also take account of the harsh response that forcible action could provoke. The failure of the information activities was quite familiar to the council, but a “sit pat” mode of action was no less serious in terms of the situation taking shape in the military cemeteries. In such a dead-end situation it is not surprising that there was no unanimity of opinion regarding the course of action; various ideas were raised to handle the problem, when the lowest common denominator was that everybody expressed contrition that they did not nip the phenomenon in the bud: “We are guilty that we actually allowed them to do this matter, one hangs up a picture and a second comes and also hangs a picture. One builds a structure; a second comes and builds some structure” and now it was impossible to solve the problem in one shot but only in stages if at all.⁶⁶ The special committee that was appointed by the permanent committee recommended focusing at this stage only on embellishments that constituted hazards on the paths and surroundings of the graves and to carry out practical measures according to the following stages: 1. The immediate publication of a joint circular of the council and Yad Labanim directed to all the bereaved families, explaining the importance of preserving the uniformity of the tombstones in the spirit of circulars that had already been disseminated in the past and in addition demanded “the removal of all the flowerpots and other embellishments on the paths and around the graves” by a certain date, while simultaneously making it clear that afterwards all these would be removed by the Division for Commemorating the Soldier; 2. Locating the hazards, the trees and the various structures in all the cemeteries and photographing them; 3. “Establishing local committees via the Yad Labanim branches to handle the families responsible for these eyesores”; 4. Having the Division for Commemorating the Soldier remove the eyesores. 65 Ibid., p. 29. 66 Ibid., pp. 26-37, the citations are from the statement by D. Giladi on p. 36.

Changes in the Appearance of the Military Cemeteries 

 375

According to plan, the implementation in all its stages was supposed to conclude by the beginning of 1988. Nonetheless, “we will not be able to combat everything,” emphasized the chairman of the special committee and the chairman of the Tombstone Subcommittee, Pinhas Yaron. “At this stage we want to prevent hazards, flowerpots are not hazards; hazards are when they block the road, block passage. If we reach the conclusion of the matter then I would propose a further discussion. Can we cut back what already exists on the graves? I would suggest not to touch this at the moment because the mission is too immense, it is too weighty, we will enter into a fierce debate with the entire body of parents.”⁶⁷ The council plenum that convened to discuss the issue in September 1987 expressed its doubts over the success of the action, especially as we were dealing with a partial action, and who could guarantee that even if the project should succeed the phenomenon would not simply recur in the future. There was serious apprehension about some type of brutal activity, and therefore the members proposed abandoning the committee’s proposal and relying exclusively on information on all levels and in every matter, for “in effect you’re seeking to battle their sentiment. If you attempt to explain one time and a second time and a third time, perhaps you are going to dull the sentiment and they’ll begin to comprehend. If the stages take three years, I would say that we succeeded. To wind this up in half a year – we are not going to finish this… it is going to cause pogroms, why do we need it?”⁶⁸ Furthermore, a member of the council, Hannah Rivlin, emphasized – justifiably – that the phenomenon is a cultural-communal phenomenon that is unfamiliar to the council members because of their different cultural common denominator, and therefore not only did they not comprehend it, but they do not know how to handle it and they are liable to cause tragic results if the problem is handled in the conventional fashion as proposed by the committee headed by Yaron: It appears to me that if we are going to sit here in our ivory tower made up of people whom I assume share a common denominator while we exclude from this activity people who have grown up with a background of these customs then I have the impression that we will be considered by such people as desecrators of sanctity. For example, with all my resentment towards the phenomena that we have described here, I do not want the families to hear the word hazard. What is for him the holy of holies – we, in our common culture, which is different from his culture, term it a hazard while for him it is sacred. With this we have blown our opportunity to speak with him. [One must know] how to get down to the roots of that person via his cultural background, his spiritual authority that none of us can pretend to although we’re appointed by the Defense Minister… Let us take pictures for argument’s sake, then I assume that for these people this is holy. They saw it I don’t know where. We are not the ones 67 Ibid., pp. 31-33, from a statement by P. Yaron. 68 Ibid., pp. 35-36, from a statement by D. Giladi.

376 

 Everyone Does as He Sees Fit

to persuade them, only people who speak their language and understand their psyche can do so. I know this is very difficult and I know that I myself dwell in the ivory tower with people who more or less share the same common denominator. It seems to me that otherwise there is going to be a pogrom. I am afraid to think what is going to happen.⁶⁹

In the end result the program of the committee headed by Yaron was not implemented. Unfortunately the important proposals of Hannah Rivlin were not taken seriously. Subsequently when Rivlin asked what became with her proposals, the council chairman responded in this way: “You are correct... Nothing was done in practice because we again preferred to wait till things got better.”⁷⁰ However another plan was formulated in the council with two components: the first, disseminating a general circular to the bereaved families, and the second, formulating ordinances by the minister by authority of the Law of Military Cemeteries, ordinances that would allow the Division for Commemorating the Soldier to remove the embellishments if the circular would not obtain its objectives. The circular that was sent to the bereaved families signed by the chairman of the Public Council and the head of Yad Labanim was a circular that resembled the one sent at the beginning of the 70s. It would not be an overstatement to say that from the second part of the circular one may understand that it was apparently directed not only to the families responsible for the embellishments but in the same degree directed at those who perceived the impairment, and this to demonstrate that the council had not yet given up. This was the content of the circular: The Public Council for Commemorating the Soldier and the Yad Labanim organization are making a joint approach to you on a painful and sensitive subject: the situation in the military cemeteries. The guiding principle regarding the IDF cemeteries is the uniformity of the graves: the identical character of the tombstones, the uniform format of the inscriptions, the burial ceremony, etc… This is a moral value of our world outlook and an essential foundation of our society which symbolizes the equality among all those who fell in Israel’s wars. This concept is anchored in law. We are witness to deviant activities that were committed by families at the graves of their beloved and adjacent to them, by planting trees, stationing objects, additional building, covering graves with extensive vegetation and the like, that transforms the uniformity of the graves in the military cemeteries to an injurious familial exclusivity. Severe hazards have been created that hamper the main access roads to the graves and have even damaged adjacent graves. Many perceive these impairments, and it causes them torment. The Division for Commemorating the Soldier is doing its job faithfully and maintaining military cemeteries, but it has been unable to contend with this severe problem. We most earnestly beseech the families to take action themselves in order to bring the graves of their beloved to a proper and normal situation, as should prevail in the State 69 Ibid., pp. 34-35, from the statement by H. Rivlin. 70 YLA, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 12.29.1988, p. 30 – the source of the citations. See also DMA, folder 6634, file 587, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 1.29.1989, pp. 4-5.

Changes in the Appearance of the Military Cemeteries 

 377

of Israel’s military cemeteries, and we would like to believe that this is something that will be performed by the families and speedily. The Public Council for Commemorating the Soldier in conjunction with Yad Labanim will do everything to implement the law in its letter and spirit.⁷¹

And how were they to see to the implementation of the law? – Via ordinances formulated by Attorney Naftali Lifschitz, who was a member of the council. These ordinances were the second component of the plan and they were ratified by Rabin who gave instruction to work on them prior to his signing. They establish that “1. A military cemetery is sacred to the memory of the soldiers who fell, therefore it is an obligation to preserve it clean, and any visitor there must refrain from bringing and remove any material or something that he brought and that is extraneous to the tombstones. 2. In the cemeteries all the fallen are equal, without distinction of rank in the army, post, position or status in life. And therefore discrimination by altering the text of the tombstone or any embellishments to the tombstone is prohibited. 3. The delegated officer appointed by the minister of defense as aforesaid in paragraph 2 of the law [namely the head of the Division for Commemorating the Soldier] must inform the council of any incidents involving adding material or something else or the implementation of any change to the tombstone in the military cemeteries and after receiving its assent to remove all material or anything of the aforesaid.”⁷² Did Rabin really intend to sign the ordinances after he had instructed that they should be worked on as a prelude to his signature?⁷³ Nothing at all so it emerges. This is clear to us today due to the very fact that he never signed them (and no other defense minister has signed them to this date), and in the Division for Commemorating the Soldier they made it clear to the council “they could not carry it out because the ministry does not provide authorization.”⁷⁴ We further learn about Rabin’s position from a meeting that he had with the council in September 1989 when the issue of the embellishments again arose for discussion. Rabin made it clear that he saw no alternative to information and persuasion:

71 AA, file 638/96/321, letter to the bereaved families signed by Public Council Chairman H. Adar and Chairman of the Yad Labanim organization M. Netzer, 1.1.1988. 72 DMA, folder 50721, file 3, H. Adar to Y. Rabin, 2.21.1988, enclosed are the ordinances drafted by N. Lifschitz and ratified by the council; ibid., H. Yisraeli to the legal advisor of the defense establishment, 3.1.1988; ibid., the appointee for the wording of the law in the Justice Ministry to N. Pearlman, 4.11.1988, and enclosed is the preliminary draft of the Ordinances for Military Cemeteries (Tombstones) – an adaptation of the draft for the ordinances prepared by N. Lifschitz. 73 Ibid. 74 DMA, folder 6634, file 587, protocol of the Public Council meeting with the participation of Defense Minister Y. Rabin, 9.24.1989, p. 17, from a statement by P. Yaron.

378 

 Everyone Does as He Sees Fit

“and I very much do not want to exercise force or employ the police or the courts against bereaved parents… I wouldn’t want to do it as an administrative matter of the defense establishment and make use of the judicial and police system on this matter… here the matter of persuasion and dialogue with the families is more important than in many other things. Therefore, if I could suggest, let’s not finalize this. Discuss the matter… Go out to meet the families and persuade them. Based on that reconvene and then not only inform us about the council’s position but also the gist of personal contact with the general public of the bereaved families. This is what I would suggest to you. Because to proceed subsequently on the basis of a decision taken here to confrontation, involving police and all sorts of these things, this is not good, it is extremely not good.”⁷⁵ As for the aggrieved – those bereaved families who could not countenance the phenomenon of the embellishments – they also gathered that there was no solution; but their psychological distress did not abate, and they went back and attempted the only course available, through conventional information that was nearly hopeless. Again Discourse of the Bereaved furnished the mode of communication through which those who felt aggrieved by the embellishments could approach those who bore responsibility for their placement. Yaakov Goren wrote the following in the Memorial Day issue for 5748 (1988): In many communities military cemeteries are adjacent to the civilian ones. So for the person who passes from the civilian cemetery to the military one the difference is striking. The military cemeteries are more beautiful, and arouse respect. All the tombstones are built in a uniform and modest fashion. During their lives our sons were different, different in character, different in rank, different in the post that they occupied. All this applied till they fell in battle. Here in the face of death everybody is equal. It is precisely for that reason that it is painful and sorrowful that a few families violate the order and planning and introduce changes, of course due to a sense of exceedingly good will. Near the grave of our son one of the parents sought “to improve matters” and planted a tree, a small sapling. Subsequently the tree grew, burst through the wall and took over the entire scenery. One parent deemed it proper to place a colorful window box which to his taste was apparently beautiful and suitable but to my taste and the tastes of many others was superfluous, vexing and tasteless. The approaches by other parents to those who introduced the “embellishments” imploring the former to forgo them encountered misunderstanding and resentment and we desisted for the sake of peace. But every time we visit the cemetery the matter disturbs, angers and insults us. In a number of corners in the cemeteries the embellishments endowed the place with the appearance of slums, those neighborhoods where everybody introduces embellishments, a porch, colored awnings and the like without consideration for central planning and for the general appearance of the street and the neighborhood. The military cemetery is in the public domain and not private property and as such it perforce must have order and 75 Ibid., pp. 15-18, from a statement by Y. Rabin. See also DMA, folder 27348, file 992, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 7.14.1991, p. 23, the statement by P. Yaron.

Changes in the Appearance of the Military Cemeteries 

 379

uniformity. I observed throughout the world a number of military cemeteries in other nations and what characterizes all of them is uniformity. This uniformity alongside nurture and care provide the place with a visage that commands respect. The approach by the chairman of the Public Council for Commemorating the Soldier and the chairman of our organization [Yad Labanim]… to the family of bereavement on January 1, 1988 seems to me both fit and proper. I hope that these matters will be understood and accepted by those who introduced the changes and embellishments and that these will be removed out of consideration for the families who view such embellishments as detrimental to the character of the cemetery.⁷⁶

The issue of the embellishments again arose for the discussion in the council plenum and this time at a meeting with the new defense minister, Moshe Arens, in May 1991: “The situation of the military cemeteries from this respect is most serious and intolerable and we have spoken for many years about this topic” – emphasized Chairman Adar in despair and he added: “There are trees adjacent to the graves whose roots are eating into the neighboring tombstones. A situation prevails where there are huge portraits in the military cemeteries. A situation exists where they are covering things with flowers and bushes… on the other hand we understand the situation and we are aware of the fact that the emotional response of those families will be extraordinary, and it is definitely unpleasant, at the very least, that a delegation of bereaved parents will stand facing the Defense Ministry with placards reading ‘the defense minister doesn’t understand our sentiments, our psyche’ and the like. Then the former defense minister, Mr. Yitzhak Rabin, decided to leave this matter open. We can’t come tell the defense minister what he should do because the responsibility is his. But on the other hand the situation in military cemeteries is becoming worse from day to day. There’s always erosion. When erosion begins a second one comes later.”⁷⁷ Defense Minister Arens could offer no reply to these words. He could only concede and say “I was unaware of the fact that we were confronting a problem here.”⁷⁸ However at this council session new voices began to be heard – voices that argued the need for flexibility on the part of the council as well as on the part of the parents who felt aggrieved. And this is how Yitzhak Neeman (who also served in the post of chairman of Yad Labanim) put it: I think that this problem goes much deeper than anybody here could have imagined. And when they talk here about flexibility on the part of parents or to obligate them to agree to this law or another, I think this is very dangerous. I think that flexibility should come from 76 The house organ Discourse of the Bereaved, Memorial Day issue, 1988, p. 60. 77 DMA, folder 27348, file 992, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 5.13.1991, p. 3, from the statement by Council Chairman H. Adar. 78 Ibid., p. 4, from a statement by Defense Minister M. Arens. See also the statement by P. Yaron on p. 6.

380 

 Everyone Does as He Sees Fit

the other side. It is not possible that some regulations for the cemeteries were set 20-30 years ago – and Ms. Hannah Rivlin stated that traditions are created by the people while things remain stuck and they don’t change anything. If I can provide an example: Families find the need to move from the grass that covers a tombstone to pebbles and a few cacti and this is evident not only with a single family, but with scores of them, so apparently there is some sort of need that one should consider and discuss rather than stubbornly saying no, there will only be this type of grass. This should definitely not apply to the new plots, because the grass has quite a few defects. It’s a bother. I know that personally it caused my wife many sleepless nights, because it does not correspond to the needs. It gathers all sorts of bugs below and this gives rise to all sorts of unpleasant thoughts. In contradistinction, for our sabra sons, it’s much nicer to have the tombstone covered with a number of pebbles and some cacti. This is much more fitting both to the spirit of the cemetery and the spirit of our youth. And this will also save the cemetery, the staff, a great deal of expense in terms of tending, watering, etc… In other words I believe there has to be some sort of flexibility here on the part of those entrusted with commemoration… true uniformity was not preserved and is not being preserved, but I don’t see the disaster in this. I live in a section where there is a great deal of variety and the matter doesn’t offend, doesn’t bother, doesn’t change matters and doesn’t produce a situation where one can come and say that this isn’t a military cemetery. So if the deviation doesn’t go beyond the plausible, if it’s not beyond what is accepted, it is preferable to ignore it… as for what has been done up to now, all the deviations that I am aware of, it’s really not so bad, save perhaps for a number of trees that are already defective. So here as well such trees and others were uprooted. Maybe they will be uprooted and one can find a more discreet solution. This law will only entangle the Defense Ministry, the minister, we as a council and the families as well.⁷⁹

Hannah Rivlin, as a product of a kibbutz society (Kibbutz Gesher) who could have been expected to espouse egalitarianism, also supported the need for a certain degree of flexibility (albeit not to the same extent that Neeman was talking about) for in her opinion full uniformity and equality were not possible, and furthermore zealotry on their behalf was dangerous and pernicious. Her comments appeared to echo the words of Zisling (he too a kibbutz member) from 1950, who as may be recalled supported providing the option for personal expression during the legislative process on military cemeteries. And this is what Rivlin had to say: “In the Bible the sins of Sodom were not mentioned explicitly… What do the commentaries have to say? The commentary says that their sin was the Procrustean bed. At the entrance to the city there was a bed, and they measured whoever entered. If he was too short they stretched him and if he was too long they chopped him down by a head. The difference between uniformity and the Procrustean bed is one of the narrowest things in the world. And I wish ourselves to enjoy the wisdom to maneuver within these matters. Perhaps I am one of the few people who hails from a society that is intended to be an egalitarian society. Therefore I 79 Ibid., pp. 10-11, from a statement by Y. Neeman.

Changes in the Appearance of the Military Cemeteries 

 381

am so scared of the words uniformity and equality and I hope that we will have the wisdom to preserve the value of non-equality and heaven forfend not to fall into a Procrustean bed.”⁸⁰ From the opposite side of the spectrum the words of Naftali Lifschitz were voiced at this council session in 1991. Lifschitz as may be recalled had a few years previously already drafted ordinances for enforcing equality in the military cemeteries and forcibly removing the embellishments. He, together with most members of the council, could not accept the words of Yitzhak Neeman who supported clemency and flexibility towards the deviations: I would like to say a number of words and argue in favor of the position that there has to be full equality. In life differences exist between us. There are rich people and there are poor people, people who take an interest and people who do not take an interest. There are people who are interested in the external appearances and there are those for whom it is totally unimportant. In death there is equality. It is not possible that there should be different tombstones: A. Not everybody can allow himself to do, beautify, adorn and embellish. B. There are already those who lack someone to help them. There are those whose parents are already departed, the sons as well are gone… I cannot contemplate a cemetery where there will be indigent on the one hand and wealthy on the other. Someone said that death is… the great equalizer. It truly makes us all equal there. It’s inconceivable that after death changes will ensue. And I don’t agree with what Neeman says that there is a difference between a deviation and a severe deviation. The law governing a penny is the same as the law governing a hundred. Anybody who touches, anybody who harms uniformity impairs it in principle. And what do the Jewish sources say? A person who breaks down a fence will be bitten by a serpent. What starts out as a minor breach only paves the way to a substantial deluge.⁸¹

As mentioned, most of the council members who participated at that discussion felt like Lifschitz. Chairman Adar emphasized: Till now the majority opinion among the council members was that this is a cemetery belonging to the Jewish people, to the State of Israel, and it is military, in other words, common to the dead and fallen in IDF service. In the IDF equality exists and uniformity exists. A chief of staff such as Dori in Haifa is buried alongside a private. What has happened is that the more recent the battles are to our era the families’ sense of sorrow and pain is clearer and fresher and each family in a natural fashion wants to imprint its own uniqueness on the grave and the tombstone. And then we confront the question, can in a military grave and a military cemetery there be a grave of one that will be different than another’s?... The problem begins when they took a life sized picture of the deceased and stationed it on the grave. And when one did it and the division [for Commemorating the Soldier] kept silent, two or three weeks later there were many other such cases. For erosion has a process of its own. One does it, followed by the next. And Mr. Lifschitz is correct, by saying that as soon as you begin opening the hand

80 Ibid., p. 23, from a statement by H. Rivlin. 81 Ibid., pp. 11-12, from a statement by N. Lifschitz.

382 

 Everyone Does as He Sees Fit

with one finger, tomorrow they’ll eat up your entire hand… we just came along and said what’s wrong with tradition? Aren’t there countries which for hundreds of years began this matter and proceeded with it for hundreds of additional years simply because this is a tradition?... Does everything have to change with us upon every slight breeze or severe wind? Are all values mutable from one day to the next? Where should we preserve values if not in a military cemetery? I don’t understand what is going on here. The erosion, and to my great sorrow this resembles everything else in the country, is reflected in the military cemeteries. But there is no power that says, wait a moment, let’s arrest these things. There is tradition, there are principles, they are not anchored in the letter of our legislation; they are engraved in the Oral Law… I don’t understand why we should open up everything when it is our duty to conserve?⁸²

Defense Minister Arens preferred not to express himself. “It would be better if I don’t respond,” he said during the course of the discussion⁸³ – just like his predecessor Rabin. The policy of “sit and do nothing” – despite the implicit price – was preferable in his opinion to any administrative intervention. It would seem that the case of the D family from Haifa serves as a deviant case in the activity by the council and the defense establishment regarding the embellishments during the 80s. The family demanded in 1986 that the letters ‫( הי"ד‬May the Lord avenge his blood) should be written on its son’s tombstone. The council and the committees vigorously opposed this for the reasons that were mentioned elsewhere in this work.⁸⁴ Thereafter the father placed on the entire surface of the grave a sort of civilian tombstone made of marble on which the son’s biographical details were inscribed. It was clear to the council that it could not reconcile itself to this: “We viewed this matter as something that we had to combat, because if we did not act in such a fashion, this would be immediately imitated in all cemeteries. And indeed, after a few days, near the very same grave somebody already erected a large iron portrait and the matter would have deteriorated further and further.” Inviting the father to persuasion via discussion proved to no avail, and the minister was convinced that despite the expected difficulties and risks the removal of the tombstone was mandatory. Hence, the council members themselves removed the memorial plaque that the father had placed.⁸⁵ 82 Ibid., pp. 12-13, from a statement by Council Chairman H. Adar. 83 Ibid., p. 12, from a statement by Defense Minister M. Arens. 84 DMA, folder 21495, file 445, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 10.1.1986, p. 2; the house organ Discourse of the Bereaved, Memorial Day 1988 issue, p. 36. See also above, pp. 184-185. 85 Protocol of the Public Council meeting (above, footnote 84), pp. 2-3 – the source of the citation. See also DMA (above, footnote 84), protocol of the Public Council meeting, 3.3.1987; DMA, folder 50721, file 3, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 6.30.1987, pp. 3-4, statement by Council Chairman H. Adar; YLA, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 9.29.1987, p. 3, statement by H. Adar; DFCSA, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 7.31.1987, p. 9, the statement by P. Tal.

Changes in the Appearance of the Military Cemeteries 

 383

It turns out that prior to the removal of the memorial plaque that the father had erected, the council had decided that at the same time all the other embellishments would be removed from the Haifa cemetery. This decision was not implemented due to the preexisting directive from the office of the defense minister to the Division for Commemorating the Soldier not to remove embellishments,⁸⁶ and this directive came together with the policy of the senior echelons of the Defense Ministry on this issue for many years. After a year, in 1987, when it came to be known to the council that the father had restored and re-erected part of the tombstone, Pinhas Yaron related: “We handled the removal of the first tombstone that he erected there, but at the same time we decided on something that we didn’t fulfill; we decided to handle the other tombstones in the cemetery. I partially blame ourselves for failure to display consistency on this matter. We should have gone through the entire cemetery and tried to remove any embellishment, and embellishments exist there, in order to begin with a specific place. Haifa is not the only place where such a situation obtains, but we would at least have been in an easier position vis-à-vis that father and we could have said here we dealt with the entire cemetery and not only with your grave.”⁸⁷ In any event, the council reiterated the decision to seek the removal of the tombstone.⁸⁸ During the 90s the embellishment phenomenon reached new peaks. The State Comptroller also observed this in his report for 1995 emphasizing the violation of the principle of uniformity in the military cemeteries: “Many cases were encountered when the families of the fallen or their friends had placed an additional tombstone or various monuments on the graves, such as: marble tombs and metal plates in various sizes on which commemorative words were engraved; slabs of black marble upon which the image of the fallen soldier was inscribed; concrete and metal columns set in the grave upon which military symbols, pictures and commemorative articles were affixed… many cases were revealed involving a deviation in the appearance of the military graves as a result of plants that have been sowed and trees that have been planted on the graves. In a few cases damage was caused to the graves themselves as well as to adjacent graves as a result of planting trees.”⁸⁹ There are also descriptions from other sources describing the phenomenon of the embellishments, such as sessions of the council in which the issue arose

86 Protocol of the Public Council meeting, 7.31.1987 (above, footnote 85), p. 32. 87 Protocol of the Public Council meeting, 6.30.1987 (above, footnote 85), p. 4, from the statement by P. Yaron. 88 Protocol of the Public Council meeting, 9.29.1987 (above, footnote 85), pp. 1-5. 89 The State Comptroller (1995), p. 831.

384 

 Everyone Does as He Sees Fit

for discussion on more than one occasion.⁹⁰ Thus for example council members at the end of May 1994 raised these complaints regarding the embellishments: What about the vegetation, the trees on the graves, the trees next to the graves… one tree of my neighbor chokes our grave… on this matter as well you have to find a way to approach the families in writing, that one cannot do everything one desires. It’s just not possible, it’s a general problem. It is not permissible that a grave should be surrounded by cacti so one cannot approach the other grave. One can’t pass through there, just look at it. This also damages equality. To preserve the garden, we all turn into gardeners. We’ve mastered the profession but perhaps too well and this is not good… whoever enters the cemetery today thinks he is in a botanical garden… if one goes to those same graves that have existed since 1948, everything is orderly, there is no vegetation, there’s not even a cactus, there’s nothing. Why? The parents are gone. As for the brothers and sisters, they fulfilled their duty by perhaps making an appearance only on memorial ceremonies. And even these, slowly, they’ve left town and they won’t come specially. There you will see uniformity, total equality. I have someone there and someone someplace else. And I notice the difference. Where my son is buried, it is a botanical garden. Where my brother is buried there is peace and tranquility, uniformity, no one has added a single letter… and here everyone does exactly what he wants.⁹¹ I go there to my misfortune; every two weeks I am in Kiryat Shaul. Most families lay flowers. I want to tell you that when my son fell I didn’t know what first to grab and put on this grave… I seized something and I put it on the grave. This is what the parents do. They don’t know how to sanctify this grave. So they place flowers and flowerpots, what they can. And this applies to most of the families. This represents 95 percent.⁹²

In tours that we conducted in recent years in the military cemeteries the same findings emerged, and indeed the most significant embellishments are those of vegetation, flowers and various receptacles intended for plants. 90 DMA, folder 44823, file 222, protocol of the discussion on the Wechselbaum issue with Prime Minister and Defense Minister Y. Rabin participating, 3.11.1994; DFCSA, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 4.26.1995; FADCA, protocol of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee’s Subcommittee on Legislation meeting, 1.19.1996, pp. 9-15; DMA, file L14028, protocol of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee’s Subcommittee on Legislation meeting, 8.28.1996, p. 16, where A. Fried from the Justice Ministry expressed himself as follows: “Today the situation in the military cemeteries in Israel is dire due to the wishes of the families. The families have added all sorts of things. The foreign cemeteries seem much more dignified than the Israeli ones”; ibid., folder 2765, file 1397, letter from A. Greenwald to Y. Mordechai, 3.3.1997, where he writes: “Anybody who knows and is familiar with what is taking place in the military cemeteries is aware of the fact that all the decisions of the council are not honored in most places, in practice only parents who want to remain within the confines of the law and have turned to the council (or to the courts) end up deprived because their requests are generally not met”; DFCSA, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 7.31.1997. 91 SCA, High Court of Justice deliberations 3299/93, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 5.29.1994, pp. 25-28, from the statements by TD, KSD. 92 Ibid., protocol of the Public Council meeting, 7.5.1994, p. 27, from the statement by Z.A.

Changes in the Appearance of the Military Cemeteries 

 385

There is no doubt that behind the growth of the embellishment phenomenon that reached new heights during the 1990s the individualization processes of Israeli society, the polarization, the rupture of consensus,⁹³ the disputes between the bereaved parents on the one hand and the division and the council on the other hand, various customs that the immigrants brought with them, and the prominence in the scenery of bushes and trees that had been planted in previous years and now flourished played contributing factors.⁹⁴ This was compounded by the fact that the authorities did not do anything to eradicate the phenomenon or work to limit it. This was the equivalent of a clear statement to those who had lost their beloved recently that this norm was permissible and acceptable and even worthy of emulation, for if not such a tombstone would be considered deviant and a person buried under it would appear to be less venerated. The Division for Commemorating the Soldier and the council stood by powerless given the policy of the senior echelons of the Defense Ministry to avoid a clash with the families and not to employ any coercive-administrative methods to remove the embellishments and enforce uniformity. This is what the chairman of the council, Yisrael Ben Amitai, stated during the Wechselbaum High Court of Justice case in 1994: “In practice there are in the military cemeteries surrounding the graves and sometimes even on the tombstones many and varied embellishments that were added without permission. Despite the impairment to uniformity and equality, despite the fact that the council recommended to the parents to remove them, and due to the understandably great difficulty in such cases, where the family has refused to accede to what is requested of them, in practice one cannot take action against this phenomenon and in almost all cases these embellishments remain in place.”⁹⁵ The council members likewise did not believe that granting the option for an inscription conveying personal expression would lead to a diminution of the phenomenon, because the personal inscription expres93 Ha’aretz supplement, 7.2.1993, pp. 20-25. And see the words of Public Council member D. Giladi before the judges of the High Court of Justice in December 1994 in the Wechselbaum petition: “To our sorrow decline and moral degeneration among some minor part of Israel’s citizens has set in, and instead of unity, uniformity and minimal equality the blight of ‘every man for himself,’ and the value of individualism shunts aside the collective interest without any consideration for it, and the fissures in society are widening, the slogan of slaying sacred cows has become a contagious disease, without examining what are the results that add, detract or destroy and what will reinforce or weaken our society and state in these frenetic days.” On this see SCA, High Court of Justice Deliberations file 3299/93, 12.4.1994. 94 See the protocol of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee’s Subcommittee on Legislation meeting, 1.19.1996 (above, footnote 90). 95 SCA, High Court Justice Deliberations file 3299/93, Affidavit by respondent – 2 (the Public Council), 5.2.1994, p. 4. In an oral interview that I had with P. Yaron on 2.5.2003, Yaron told me the same things.

386 

 Everyone Does as He Sees Fit

sion was limited in size and content: “Even if we were to add this embellishment [personal inscription] on the pillow it would not reduce all the embellishments that exist in the vicinity… they [the families] see this as an expression. With this expression… they will persist even if you will allow them to add a limited and supervised line.”⁹⁶ As we shall see below, Ben Amitai was proven most correct. Furthermore, even after the High Court of Justice decision in March 1995, when the council members were told that in the framework of the new ordinances for personal inscription there would be an ordinance for enforcement that would allow the Division for Commemorating the Soldier to remove the embellishments – old and new alike – then as well they expressed grave doubts regarding the ability to implement it. They remembered the serious disgruntlement of the families during the 70s, when the information activity on the topic had just begun – “and a tremendous brouhaha arose which you could not even imagine”⁹⁷ – and they were persuaded that this brouhaha, and even something graver, would arise again and would not allow the establishment to remove the embellishments. Now as previously, in 1995, there were council members who believed that the enforcement ordinance did not have to be a sweeping ordinance covering all types of embellishments: “I would not suggest that in the law or the bylaws it should be prohibited to water flowers or to grow flowers or something… or vegetation here, vegetation there, I think this is something that you cannot do [i.e., prevent], because this is day to day activity. This is a new profession and I think that some of us feel that this constitutes continued care for that same fallen soldier and I don’t think that we should worry about it.”⁹⁸ It is noteworthy that ethicist Professor Asa Kasher, himself a bereaved father, made an effort to persuade that the embellishments alongside tombstones uniform in size, color and shape, arranged row upon row, in practice struck the clear, exemplary and proper expression for balancing between the required personal expression according to the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty and the uniformity required in the

96 DMA, folder 44823, file 222, protocol of the deliberation on the issue of the Wechselbaum High Court of Justice case with the participation of Prime Minister and Defense Minister Y. Rabin, 3.11.1994, p. 8, from the statement by Public Council’s Chairman Y. Ben Amitai. 97 DFCSA, protocol of the Public Council’s Permanent Committee meeting with the Tombstone Subcommittee, 4.26.1995, p. 25 – the citation is from the statement by Y. Lautenberg. In July 1997 Lautenberg added regarding that tempest that “one said – let them just dare removing it – I will kill the one removing it – another said I don’t know what I am going to do and so on and so forth and they backtracked from this issue – and the matter remained as it was.” On this see DFCSA, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 7.31.1997, p. 27. 98 DFCSA, protocol of the Public Council meeting on 4.26.1995 (above, footnote 97), p. 26, from a statement by Z. Futerman.

Changes in the Appearance of the Military Cemeteries 

 387

military cemetery. For this reason he felt that one should not damage the embellishments and destroy the balance.⁹⁹ However, during the 1990s and especially during their latter half, the Division for Commemorating the Soldier and the Council witnessed a further aggravation in the embellishment phenomenon and the appearance of new components which they had never previously witnessed: the placement of a huge boulder instead of the tombstone inscribed with bitter inscriptions, the establishment of a monument near the tombstone, the establishment of pillows by the families or the substitution of the tombstone pillows with ones identical to them or marble plates with inscriptions that the families desired but that the council had prohibited. The removal of the military tombstone and the placement of a boulder weighing hundreds of kilograms in its stead were done as alluded to previously by the late Shula Melet in 1993 on the grave of her son Amir at the military cemetery in Yokneam after she demanded bringing those responsible for the death of her son to justice. Amir was killed at an Air Force base as a result of “aerial net roulette,” and on the boulder that she placed Melet inscribed scathing accusations and denunciations of her son’s commanders due to his demise in that deadly roulette. Given the first Wechselbaum High Court of Justice case that was taking place at that time and other disputes between the parents and the council, this action was considered a breach of every rule. Even those who disagreed with the council did not condone such an activity, which was unprecedented. The council members and the division tried to talk things over with Melet so she would remove this crass deviation, but they did not succeed and they asked the defense minister to do so. The defense minister, faithful to his policy, did not hasten to fulfill the request, and when he had already given the go-ahead to the division to remove the boulder, the head of the division tried to solve the issue peaceably and receive Melet’s agreement. In the meantime Melet put an end to her life before the boulder was removed from her son’s grave.¹⁰⁰ In retrospect the council members expressed relief that the removal of the tombstone was delayed. From their words one could detect that they were most apprehensive about what could have happened if the council’s removal of the boulder had preceded Melet’s suicide: “It is our good fortune that they did not remove the tombstone before she committed

99 Protocol of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee’s Subcommittee on Legislation meeting, 1.19.1996 (above, footnote 90), pp. 9-14, from the statement of Professor A. Kasher. 100 DFCSA, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 7.1.1993; Ha’aretz Supplement (above, footnote 93); Discourse of the Bereaved, Memorial Day 1994, p. 13; Ha’aretz (above, footnote 9); SCA, High Court of Justice deliberations file 3299/93, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 5.29.1994, p. 11. See also Gur (1998).

388 

 Everyone Does as He Sees Fit

suicide…¹⁰¹ I am really relieved over the fact that the defense minister did not accept our proposal and our request to remove the tombstone for this was not permissible. It is not permissible to leave it. And he took things easy… it is good that they did not remove it.”¹⁰² A few months after the death of the mother, the division in coordination with the family removed the boulder from the grave.¹⁰³ A similar situation that concluded differently thanks to the handling of the division and the council was a case of the monument (including planting a tree) that was erected in 1996 near the tombstone of former Chief of Staff Motta Gur at the initiative of his friends. “Neighbors” to the tombstone warned that if the division would not remove the monument, “they would view themselves free to do many things.” And in general, leaving the monument in place could have provided decisive proof to all the families that were waging campaigns at the time against the council while arguing that towards whoever “was well connected to the government they turn a blind eye. Here they would have made a major scandal. It is our luck that nobody got wind of this. We removed it quickly… with the agreement of the family and the friends and that was that… if not for this… we would have encountered a fistful of troubles… I am amazed at this impudence to establish a monument at a military cemetery.”¹⁰⁴ The most common of all the new forms of embellishments was the setting of pillows by families or the replacement of pillows with standard and nonstandard pillows. One of them bore the inscription: “born in Canada and raised in Jerusalem, handsome, tall and strong, an outstanding athlete, a member of the Israel youth volleyball team, devotedly and fervently served in the naval commandos being an only child, died as a Golani soldier from ‘friendly fire’ on the way to an ambush in Lebanon when he was in the forward unit and carrying a machine gun and he died before he was 20.”¹⁰⁵ The phenomenon of the substitution of pillows increased, apparently, after the decision in the second Wechselbaum High Court of Justice case in 1995 which recognized the right of parents to personal expression on the tombstone. The Wechselbaum family as may be recalled in autumn 1995 placed a standard pillow of its own on the tombstone on which they inscribed the line “brother to Jack, Limor and Adi.” The unequivocal decision by the council to seek to remove the pillow and letters to the defense minister demanding that this be done did not lead to actions. The defense ministers did not want to clash with 101 DFCSA, protocol of the Public Council’s Permanent Committee meeting, 4.4.1994, p. 1. 102 DFCSA, protocol of the Public Council’s Permanent Committee meeting, 11.24.1994, p. 28. 103 Ibid., pp. 28-29. 104 DFCSA, protocol of the Public Council’s Permanent Committee meeting, 7.30.1996, pp. 11-12. 105 SCA, High Court Justice Deliberations file 3299/93, from the statement by D. Giladi on 12.4.1994.

Changes in the Appearance of the Military Cemeteries 

 389

the Wechselbaum family, just like they did not want to clash with other families due to the placement of embellishments.¹⁰⁶ In 1997 the Division for Commemorating the Soldier already encountered six cases where standard pillows or marble tablets instead of pillows had been placed, and upon which the families inscribed the texts that they desired, such as family details and details about the circumstances of the death. In two of these cases we were dealing with those who fell in the helicopter disaster. On one of the pillows the family wrote the circumstances of their fall: “fell on his way to Lebanon on behalf of the security objective of defending the Northern communities, the people and the land in the helicopter disaster.” Additionally in that very same year, nine tombstones were located in the military cemetery in Netanya where the families had placed marble plaques that incorporated the pictures of their beloved.¹⁰⁷ Following a tour that council members conducted in the Netanya military cemetery in summer 1997, the head of the division reported the existence of 1,000 deviant tombstones in military cemeteries throughout Israel (although it is not clear what was defined as deviant in this number). All these cases, as well as the compilation of “deviation albums” by the division, helped raise the issue of the embellishments for an additional extensive discussion at the council. It is possible that the change of ministers – Minister Peres and after him Minister Mordechai instead of Minister Rabin – and the explicit codification in the law of the principles of uniformity and equality alongside the possibility extended to personal expression combined with the addition of new categories of death instilled the hope that now perhaps it would be possible to induce a change. No one on the council disputed the fact that the existing situation involving so blatant an impairment to the principle of uniformity and equality that was now anchored in law was intolerable. Nevertheless this consensus did not hinder the development of a discussion, so familiar from the past. The centerpiece of the discussion was the question of whether one should take any action at all, for on the one hand “we like the entire country must observe the laws of the land,” on the other hand, “I believe that there’s nothing to be done. This law does not have any teeth. There are no fines imposed on somebody who does deviant things, and I can tell you I am a member of a kibbutz. In the kibbutz there are loads of laws but there are no fines so everybody does exactly what he pleases in recent years,” “today [in general] the phenomenon is already different and it parallels what is going on in the country. 106 DFCSA, protocol of the Public Council’s Permanent Committee meeting, 7.30.1996, pp. 18-19; ibid., summary of the Public Council’s Permanent Committee meeting, 8.22.1996; ibid., protocol of the Public Council meeting, 7.31.1997, pp. 4, 8. See also the harsh comments by council members on the matter at the council meeting of 7.31.1997. 107 See the protocol on 7.31.1997 (above, footnote 106).

390 

 Everyone Does as He Sees Fit

Everybody does what he wants and the phenomenon is so serious that I think for example of the issue of the pictures on the tombstones... This is a matter that perhaps could have been discussed 20 years ago, today there is nothing to be done about it, and everybody does what he wants.” And if one should take action, then should one take action to remove all the embellishments or only those connected with impairments to the pillow “which is a red line that in no way should be crossed,” whereas regarding the other embellishments “it didn’t work in the past, it won’t work now either… people have become attached to the hat… the sign… the flowerpot and a thousand other things… there is no rationale that you could approach these people with and I would suggest not touching this.” And perhaps “there are things that one can live with [and there are] some things that it is hard to countenance such as for example the pictures, the addition of colored marble of this type or another.” Perhaps it was worthwhile contending only with those embellishments that were only recently placed – as now an option for personal inscription exists and additional categories of death have been provided – and to ignore those that were placed in the past? And who will take responsibility for the mission, and to what degree should the defense minister be involved – “he, not us, is going to get flak, this has become a political issue… therefore you should not have any doubts that the decision has to come from the defense minister.” Should one try again the information method or is there no recourse this time but to combine it with the coercive-administrative method? And if so what is this way: physical removal of the embellishments by the Division for Commemorating the Soldier or imposing sanctions on the bereaved families who refuse to remove the embellishments in the form of sanctions on military benefits that they are entitled to? And in general, is the Division for Commemorating the Soldier prepared for such missions? Why is today different from the past, “they are always speaking about this topic and nobody has lifted a finger except for the other side that runs to the High Court of Justice.” Most council members were in accord regarding the “sanctity” of the pillow and the need to prevent any impairment to it, substitution, placing embellishments on it and the like – handling of all these should receive top priority. But given the vast number of embellishments, their prominence in the area (such as bushes that became tall trees) and their discordant appearance (such as pictures of the fallen that overshadow the entire tombstone), there were some who believed that the substitution of the pillows and the addition of inscriptions to them were already in the realm of a tolerable phenomenon. In practice they challenged the “sanctity of the pillow” – something unheard of in the council previously. These members emphasized that actually the changes in the inscription on the pillow (and this includes placing or changing the pillows) were less bothersome, for “the inscription on the pillow… you see only when you’re standing right

Changes in the Appearance of the Military Cemeteries 

 391

next to the grave,” whereas what deserved priority handling were the serious impairments to the general appearance of the military cemetery: The general look of the graves that have such monuments that are truly jarring to the eyes… it’s more important to deal with these things that go upwards… the view of the military cemetery is a flat look and the uniformity or the equality is preserved by its flat look. If we see monsters here and there – and I can call them monsters – because I didn’t see any one of them with some artistic merit – this really upsets the eye and seriously disturbs the general appearance of the cemetery. I wouldn’t handle the pillows… There are some deviations in the form of building upwards of Torah scrolls where they did things that are deviant and mar the uniformity of the grave itself, of the entire grave and not only the pillow. No stranger goes up to the pillow. Whoever approaches the pillow is a family member, a relative or an acquaintance and they have the right in my opinion to see there what they want to find. It doesn’t interest me what they wrote on the pillow and I don’t think that someone else should take an interest in what I wrote on the pillow. What interests us is the uniformity of the cemetery… and here we have to handle the deviant cases… I see the pictures. Here there are much worse things than what happened to the pillows.¹⁰⁸

The discussions in summer 1997 concluded with decisions to take action both with regards to the pillows that had been substituted, and that had inscriptions added or embellishments placed on them, and everything connected to the “particularly deviant” embellishments, such as pictures, upright signs which bore titles “and what we would call towers.” All the other embellishments, including parts of weapons, symbols, “books,” models and everything connected with vegetation and gardening, were not included for the time being in the decision. The council wanted at first to be sure that the handling of the major deviations and those to the pillows would bear fruit.¹⁰⁹ And how was this handling to be performed? “A letter would go out approaching the families regarding the deviations on the two issues after receiving the consent of the family. Responsibility for implementation, corrections and changes – is imposed on the Division for Commemorating the Soldier. In a case where the family refuses, the family will be invited for a talk with the Permanent Committee of the council. If the family should persist in its refusal even after the discussion with the Permanent Committee, the council will turn to the defense minister to request authorization to make the required changes. At the same time the council will request the Yad Labanim organization to use its organizational channels to approach the said families and attempt to persuade them about the correctness of the approach.”¹¹⁰ But anybody who today visits 108 Ibid. – all the citations are from council members. 109 Ibid. 110 Ibid.

392 

 Everyone Does as He Sees Fit

the military cemeteries and the military sections will be convinced that nothing has changed. The decisions and recommendations remain on paper only. There is no doubt the Public Council and the Division for Commemorating the Soldier reconciled themselves to the phenomenon of the embellishments, including the serious embellishments. The expression “everybody does as he sees fit” is the proper definition of the situation that exists de facto. We can gather this not only from tours that we conducted in the military cemeteries during the years 2002-2006,¹¹¹ but from the closing report at the end of the year 2000 issued by the council subcommittee, and even further from the council’s decision on March 2001 referring to this report. Moreover, it is most surprising that from a report by the subcommittee, as will be cited below, it emerges that the committee members were unaware of the council decisions from 1997. The report was presented by the Subcommittee for Reexamining the Inscription on the Tombstones which saw fit – after it had toured the cemeteries and concluded that a connection existed between the issue of the inscription and the embellishments – to depart from its letter of reference and address this issue as well. And this is what the committee wrote: The committee in its visits to the military cemeteries found a sorry picture where everyone did as he saw fit near the grave plots. In practice the Division for Commemorating the Soldier has no control over what is being done by some of the families and its enforcement powers are limited when blatant cases of deviation are perpetrated. The committee found that families planted large trees, whose roots are causing damage, placed large statues, uprooted vegetation from the gravesite and planted a different vegetation that yields a situation that mars the physical uniformity of the cemetery. The committee recommends in light of the aforesaid as follows: A. To set uniform and clear rules on what is permitted and prohibited and bring them to the attention of the families. Likewise it is recommended to define enforcement methods when deviant things are perpetrated. B. The ordinances should specify clearly and in detail data standards regarding the size of the grave, type of stone, measurements, type of vegetation, the width of the paths, etc. C. The committee recommends clearly establishing what is permitted and prohibited regarding stationing appurtenances near the grave sites, for example, flowerpots up to a certain height (40 cm) and this in order not to damage the uniform physical character of the military cemetery, and the same applies regarding the stationing of appurtenances, weapons, statues, planting of trees between the grave plots, etc. D. Since the committee encountered the phenomenon where families of various communities tend to install on their own volition a marble plate (a sort of additional tombstone) on which the picture of a fallen soldier is engraved, the committee recommends prohibiting this totally, and to take steps to remove and arrest this serious matter. E. The committee recommends that the Division for Commemorating the Soldier should use the services of the Yad Labanim organization and request that the organization assume this important and central role in information efforts including information activity

111 See p. 394 and onwards.

Changes in the Appearance of the Military Cemeteries 

 393

among the families who seriously deviated from the norms and will persuade them to remove the appurtenances erected in contravention of the directives and rules.

The subcommittee further added that alongside the findings that it encountered it received the impression that the vast majority of the bereaved families were interested in the uniform physical appearance of the military cemetery and opposed impairment to this principle.¹¹² In presenting the report’s findings and recommendations before the council plenum the chairman of the subcommittee argued that the situation that prevailed in the military cemeteries is a reflection of what is happening in society in general, just as deviations exist on these topics and others [in society], on this issue we found huge deviations, and in my opinion it is a pity that over the years, with all the complexity and sensitivity notwithstanding, no measures were taken, save perhaps for information measures, in order to prevent all these phenomena that we are witnessing… and when such things occur and there is no timely and immediate response… then it becomes some sort of norm… when you look at a plot… beyond the fact that it is a military plot and the physical shape of the tombstones is uniform, you witness all sorts of embellishments that you could not even imagine. We surveyed a series of cemeteries and military sections and we were astounded to see things, where every person did as he saw fit. I do not want to go into details because we really saw some things that are astounding, people in general uprooted everything from the gravesite and placed tuff. On the tuff they planted what have you, really things that you would not imagine… This has become a norm, that when someone erects a statue and someone next to the plot says that if they are erecting statues then I am also allowed to put up a statue and this is how matters degenerated into a situation that in our opinion, in the opinion of the entire committee, this is a subject that must be handled cautiously and with all due seriousness.¹¹³

And again there ensued in the council plenum in the wake of the report the all too familiar discussion resembling the ones that had taken place on more than one or two occasions, and again the debates erupted regarding the definition of “deviation,” and again the argument arose that one should grant consideration to the parents, for “part of tending the grave is occupational therapy for the parents and therefore let’s be logical, this should not be a free-for-all but there should be some personal expression allowed those parents who so desire it.” On the other hand council members suggested learning from the total uniformity in the British military cemeteries, but this proposal was angrily shot down with the argument that there was no reason to 112 DFCSA, the committee’s recommendations for a re-examination of the inscription on the tombstones, 12.13.2000. 113 DFCSA, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 3.18.2001, pp. 4-6, from the statement by Y. Lautenberg.

394 

 Everyone Does as He Sees Fit

learn from the non-Jews because “I am not British, I’m Middle Eastern, and I want to be in the Middle East.” And again the question arose what could be done further aside from attempting to explain, and who would take upon themselves responsibility for the actual removal of the embellishments. But this time it was already clear to the council members that only the institution of the family of bereavement, that is Yad Labanim, was capable of carrying out the mission, because “No politician in the State of Israel will abet this, no one, therefore I told you, Yad Labanim, only we, all of us can do so if we decide that it should be done, only we can do this physically, nobody else is going to do it, and nothing will avail any of you.” However the Yad Labanim chairman answered provocatively that Yad Labanim is not the police, and in any event one must receive authorization from the defense minister, and again it was proposed to establish another committee that would study the issue in depth.¹¹⁴ Nothing remained for the council to do but to decide at the end of this barren discussion that “in deviant cases that clearly impair the uniformity and the general order, the Division for Commemorating the Soldier with the assistance of the Yad Labanim organization will remove the eyesore.”¹¹⁵ The council therefore declaratively reconciled itself to many of the embellishments, whether they were connected to the pillow or not, including cases of substitution of pillows, and regarding matters that it did not reconcile itself to, it sufficed with no more than a declaration that lacked any backing whatsoever.¹¹⁶ As in 2006, today it is almost impossible to encounter in the military cemeteries those articles of embellishment that were originally placed on the tombstones from the 60s and 70s (and most definitely not on the tombstones from the 50s). These tombstones are generally “clean,” and they make the major contribution to the uniform appearance of the military cemeteries. What was the fate of the embellishments placed on the tombstones of those who fell in the Six-Day War and primarily on the tombstones of those who fell during the War of Attrition and the Yom Kippur War? Some of them were removed by the relatives themselves due to the extensive persuasion activities that took place after the War of Attrition that were described above; some were removed as stated by the Division for Commemorating the Soldier.¹¹⁷ It is possible that the division worked in this manner subsequently, after the relatives, due to their advanced age, stopped visiting the graves. It is also plausible that the

114 Ibid., pp. 33-41 – all the citations are from statements by council members. 115 See the protocol of the Public Council meeting (above, footnote 113). 116 See also DFCSA, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 12.12.1999, that contained harsh descriptions about what was taking place in the military cemeteries. See ibid. on how Rabin opposed sending a letter to the Wechselbaum family demanding that they remove the tombstone that they installed, because of his opposition in principle to clashing with the bereaved families. 117 And see also DFCSA, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 7.31.1997, pp. 28-29.

Changes in the Appearance of the Military Cemeteries 

 395

flowerpots and the vases were removed after the plants that they held withered and died.¹¹⁸ Likewise it is possible that the installation of the lanterns – i.e., receptacles for memorial candles – induced the council and the division to recognize over time the necessity of this article and led to the decision to place on the tombstones uniform lanterns, and this permitted the removal of the lanterns that the families had placed. The prominence of the embellishment phenomenon in the last decades is not a matter of doubt. Anyone who visits a military cemetery or military sections throughout Israel can distinguish those areas where those who fell in the recent decades are buried. The visits we conducted as aforesaid in quite a few military cemeteries and about 1,000 photographs of tombstones in their vicinity that we photographed there over the years 2002-2006 (representative examples are produced in the collection of photographs from p. 345 onwards) are also informative about this. Furthermore, the option granted since 1995 for an inscription conveying personal expression – both on the older tombstones and the newer ones – had no effect at all on the custom of placing the various embellishments (including the gardening) both on the tombstones where the option of adding a personal inscription was utilized as well as on others. The amendment to the law that was spoken of during and prior to the legislative process that would have presumably resulted in a cutback of the embellishments, therefore, did not change anything. It seems that for the relatives who just recently joined the family of bereavement a variety of ideas for embellishments was provided by the veteran tombstones in the vicinity.¹¹⁹ In contradistinction the phenomenon was almost nonexistent on the tombstones of those who fell during the first two decades after the establishment of the state; this is not only for the reasons that we detailed above but also because this practice was almost nonexistent at the time, and even if the parents were still alive they are not culturally and ideologically attuned to this method.¹²⁰ Despite the prominence of the phenomenon it is hard to gauge its current extent from a quantitative standpoint in all areas of the cemeteries and military sections. The volume of the embellishments and sundry components vary from tombstone to tombstone. These data could be ascertained only if an extensive survey were to be conducted. For that reason it would be proper to verify through academic research methods the Wechselbaum family’s contention in its second petition to

118 Proof of this assumption can be derived perhaps from a visit to the military cemetery at Rosh Pina that I conducted on 4.15.2002 where I clearly witnessed the vases and flowerpots strewn at the margins of the cemetery. 119 A survey conducted by Michal Prinz Katz at the military cemetery on Mount Herzl on 1.1.2004. This also emerges from the collection of photographs (pp. 345 ff.). 120 DFCSA, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 7.31.1997, p. 30, the citation from the statement by Y. Neeman.

396 

 Everyone Does as He Sees Fit

the High Court of Justice, a contention made on the basis of photographs of the embellishments that the family conducted in the military cemetery in Kiryat Shaul, that the “pictures demonstrate embellishments to the tombstones of IDF war dead and clearly show that the existing de facto absence of uniformity in the military cemeteries is only intensifying. The families of the IDF dead want to give personal expression to their grief, alongside the uniform grave.”¹²¹ In contradistinction, as part of its response to the Wechselbaum petition to the High Court of Justice and in response to the above contention by the family, the Division for Commemorating the Soldier conducted a detailed examination at the end of 1994 that included 12,000 tombstones (less than two thirds of the military tombstones at the time) in 96 military cemeteries and military sections. From this examination it emerges that embellishments existed only to 964 tombstones that constitute only 8% of the total of tombstones. On the basis of this the division contended that “the uniformity in the military cemeteries and the military sections is not only the guiding principle but is also the situation that applies in practice. The deviations and embellishments represent only an abnormal minority.”¹²² However, the results of this extensive investigation are problematic, because the examination was conducted by an interested party and it is not clear to us what method was employed.¹²³ Furthermore, the fact that on Mount Herzl deviations to an extent of 1.5% were encountered while in Kiryat Shaul the deviations totaled 23% – in other words a huge disparity emerged between two urban cemeteries – this factor is revealing about the problematic nature of this inspection. In any event, it would not be an overstatement to note that in referring to the totality of the military cemetery compounds and the military sections, a disparity exists between the prominence of the embellishment phenomenon as a phenomenon in the military cemeteries tableau and its extent that is more limited. When we are dealing with the recently added burial sections, the phenomenon of the embellishments is most prominent in the military cemeteries and its extent has increased. Likewise we have learned that the prominence and extent of the embellishment phenomenon is higher in the major cities as opposed to the smaller cities, the periphery and the rural regions.¹²⁴ 121 SCA, High Court of Justice deliberations file 3299/93, the response by the petitioners to the supplementary announcement by the respondents, 11.18.1994, p. 6, paragraph 9.3. On this basis the family it may be recalled argued that no uniformity and equality existed in the military cemeteries, and therefore their demand to add inscriptions conveying personal expression to the tombstone was justified. 122 SCA (above, footnote 121). A request by the respondents to present an additional affidavit, 12.1.1994. 123 See also above, p. 247, our comments on this examination. 124 See above, footnote 122. From the examination by the division it is most conspicuous that the percentage of deviations in rural environments is very low if not zero, whereas in the urban

Postscript An Unfinished Story The Military Tombstone as a Dynamic Cultural Product in the Scenery of the State of Israel The stillness of the stone tombstones on the graves of more than 20,000 war dead buried in the military cemeteries in no shape or manner reflects their turbulent story over more than 50 years. They were intended to be set in place, but they did not enjoy any respite. They began their path as military cemeteries and now they find themselves as cemeteries for the security forces. At the dawn of their existence uniformity predominated in the tombstones and their immediate vicinity. Today these things are accurate only for some of them. But all of them, without exception, constitute the most emotionally laden item in the State of Israel’s cultural scene and represent an element of the building blocks of Israeli identity. As with any man-made product positioned in the scenery, the tombstones in their general appearance including the inscription engraved upon them were shaped by a number of variables that operated over a period of more than five decades. These variables, as they emerge from the 11 chapters of our work, are striking in their complexity, first and foremost because of their connection with deep emotional aspects. These aspects are connected not only to the experience of bereavement sustained by those who have recently lost their beloved and those for whom time has passed since the disaster befell them, but are also tied to the national experience of bereavement and the attitude towards bereavement and the family of bereavement evinced by the citizen, the state and its institutions and the changes that have occurred in this respect over the years. It is this complexity that contributes to the uniqueness of the military tombstones and to their divorce from other scenic details crafted by man. The military tombstone of the mid 1950s – the “prototypical tombstone” – only partially resembles the military tombstone of 2005 in terms of its physical shape and contents. The differences are even more blatant if we were to refer also to the immediate vicinity of the tombstones, for example prominent differences in the type, variety and height of the vegetation as well as differences among the various articles that have been placed on them and in their vicinity. The changes that took place over time in rules, norms and laws linked to the military tombstone have led to differences over time among the tombstones, while preserving the physical and content contours of the prototype tombstone. environment it is higher.

398 

 An Unfinished Story

Those responsible for determining the prototype of the military tombstone and the changes that have taken place over time were the decision-makers and those who influenced them. Their actions and decisions were motivated by their essential world outlook, their values, feelings, experience, by new needs and realities and by the zeitgeist in which they operated. Included in the decision-makers and those who influenced them were the Public Council for Commemorating the Soldier, the heads of the Division for Commemorating the Soldier, military officeholders, the top executives and senior legal advisors in the Defense Ministry, the State Attorney’s Office, the defense ministers, the legislators, the Supreme Court justices, the family of bereavement throughout generations – private individuals (including those acting via their legal representatives) or organized in an organizational framework (such as Yad Labanim) – and opinion leaders. During the various periods in the history of the tombstone this list of decision-makers and those who influenced them exerted varying degrees of influence in determining its shape, but there can be no doubt that the Public Council for Commemorating the Soldier, the defense ministers, the Division for Commemorating the Soldier, the family of bereavement, the Supreme Court and the legislators had a decisive role in this. *** The physical prototype of the military tombstone was determined by the Division for Commemorating the Soldier and the heads of the Defense Ministry in the early years of the state, and this was the model of the “recumbent tombstone” encompassing the tombstone and pillow. This model was chosen on the basis of the shape of the tombstones in Jerusalem’s cemeteries and in the spirit of Jewish tradition. Likewise they decided upon the principle of uniformity and the equality of tombstones when they adopted the rules set down by the Royal Commission for War Graves in the military cemeteries of the British Commonwealth (that also resembled European and American cemeteries), examples of which could also be found in Israel. Uniformity and equality dovetailed with the characteristics of Israeli society during that era: a sense of belonging to the collective and the concept of a unity of purpose on behalf of which the sons had fallen – the establishment of the state. These principles were of great importance also in terms of the content component of the tombstone. Furthermore, it was most important in promoting the process of shaping an Israeli identity to set a uniform model in terms of the shape of the military tombstone. Only years later, given a growing sense of confidence in the Israeli identity that had been consolidated, a gradual relaxation of the strict principles that were laid down upon the establishment of the state ensued.

An Unfinished Story 

 399

The type of stone – Jerusalem stone – was decided upon by the Yad Labanim organization and the Public Council for Commemorating the Soldier for symbolic reasons due to a desire to honor the fallen and to assist Jerusalem’s economy. Covering the body of the tombstone with vegetation was decided upon at the initiative of the Division for Commemorating the Soldier and Yad Labanim, and one can assume that was influenced by the British model.¹ Although the vegetation was planted in a manner that is permissible under Jewish law, it is difficult to say that it conforms to the spirit of Jewish law. After a while the Division for Commemorating the Soldier prescribed a model of marble covering instead of vegetation – a coverage that was practiced in the large and major cemeteries – for the small and distant cemeteries (where responsibility for their care was not entrusted to the Division for Commemorating the Soldier and there was no way to tend to the vegetation over time) as well. The recumbent tombstone model, with its two types of coverage, and the principle of uniformity and equality for the tombstones remained for a long time the physical foundation of the Israeli military tombstone. It would seem that the selection of this physical model would subsequently facilitate embellishments to the tombstone and its surroundings that would not have been possible had the choice fallen upon the standing model characteristic of military tombstones in Europe and North America. In that case the open expanse that remained available for embellishments of various sorts would have been much smaller, and the types of embellishments near each tombstone would have been restricted. It is possible that the polarization between the head of the tombstone (the pillow), where the uniform inscription is located, and the foot of the tombstone, reserved for the inscription conveying personal expression, could have been minimized. A physical component that was added to the prototype after 40 years was a marble plaque in the lower portion of the tombstone on which it was permitted to engrave an inscription conveying personal expression (the marble plaque was symbiotically related to the issue of the inscription, and on this we will expand below in the context of the content component of the tombstone). Putting the marble plaque at a distance from the pillow expresses separation between the uniform and equal part of the tombstone, namely the national state portion located at the “head,” and the personal, familial portion located at the “feet” of the tombstone (in both senses of the word). Subsequently, at the beginning of the third millennium and with a growing appreciation in the Public Council of the value of the personal-private-individual and unique component, as well as the result of a rejuvenation of Public Council membership, in tune with the spirit of the era emphasizing the individual and because Israeli identity was no longer 1 Mosse (1990), pp. 84-85.

400 

 An Unfinished Story

menaced, it was not surprising that the subcommittee acting on behalf of the council recommended “raising” the marble plaque upon which the inscription conveying personal expression was engraved and uniting it with the pillow. The “embellishments” are the physical components that were not determined by the establishment but by the families, and they accompany the military tombstone in Israel for many years. However, from the moment that the senior echelons of the Defense Ministry, and first and foremost the defense ministers, made peace with the phenomenon and consciously refused to arrest it – either because of their warm and sympathetic attitude to the bereaved families or because they feared the political fallout that would be caused them if they should adopt a coercive-administrative action – they became complicit to the families in transforming the phenomenon into a norm and took part in shaping the physical contours (and to a certain degree also the content) of the tombstone and its immediate surroundings.² The phenomenon of the personal embellishments to the tombstones indeed marred the uniformity and equality of the tombstones, but there are those who would contend that it strikes the proper balance between the uniform state expression and the conflicting personal expression. It is clear that the embellishments fulfill a deep need in the bereavement experience and in contending with it, and they are predicated on the cultural customs of the communities and cultures that comprise Israeli society ever since the establishment of the state. The closer we approach the present era, the explanations that view the phenomenon as an intensification of individualization processes in Israel³ and the importation of customs tied to the grave and tombstone on the part of families that have recently arrived in Israel from the Commonwealth of Independent States – gain greater weight. Likewise it is apparent that the stationing of embellishments leads to imitation of the phenomenon at adjacent tombstones. Nevertheless it would be worthwhile to examine why the phenomenon of the embellishment is generally absent in the military cemeteries throughout the Western world. It emerges that the option provided by the law in 1997 for personal expression did not diminish the dimensions of the embellishments phenomenon. Those who favored granting the option for a personal inscription conveying personal expression ascribed the embellishment phenomenon to the family’s search for a substitute for an inscription conveying personal expression that had been denied 2 Rabin’s “contribution” to making the phenomenon permanent was decisive, for his tenure in the post of defense minister was the longest aside from that of Ben-Gurion, and additionally he served in this post during the critical period in terms of the development and aggravation of the phenomenon. 3 On this see below.

An Unfinished Story 

 401

them by law. In our opinion increasing the number of words permitted in the framework of the inscription conveying personal expression will not reduce the phenomenon. We believe that currently the embellishment phenomenon has struck such deep roots that even the families who have not recently lost their beloved and originally did not tend to adopt the practice now likewise see themselves obligated to add embellishments to the tombstone, for if they did not do so they would be considered as begrudging the grave of their beloved. The issue of the embellishments is part of the unfinished story of the Israeli military tombstone. Who are we, who have been fortunate enough to remain outside the family of bereavement, to say what action is worthy and what is unworthy to be done in this case. It is very doubtful if future defense ministers will treat the subject differently than their predecessors, and even if they should decide to depart from previous custom and initiate legislation to regulate the matter, will it be possible to enforce such legislation? And thus, one can imagine that prominent physical details on the tombstone, scenery that sometimes overshadows the tombstone itself, will remain in the future as well, and will even perhaps be enhanced. It would be worthy in any case that if the decision-makers should seek to change the existing custom their decision should take place after a thorough study of the issue including its history. *** The contours of the prototype content of the military tombstone were formulated and shaped during the years 1949-1954. Participating in the formulation process were the Army, the Division for Commemorating the Soldier, the Public Council for Commemorating the Soldier, the defense minister and the Legislature. The process was characterized by adjusting the inscription related to those who fell in war (the War of Independence) to the inscription referring to those who fell in the course of routine military life after the war. Controversies and agonizing were part of the process, accompanied by pressures on these decision-makers on the part of interested parties who sought to shape the substance of the inscription in line with their approach. However, the principles of uniformity and equality, a state-centric approach, the preservation of Jewish tradition and law directed the decision-makers, just as these guided them in shaping the physical contours. Hence, on the issue of the principles of uniformity and equality in the inscription there is great resemblance to the British tombstone, but with one substantial difference: The rules of the inscription that took shape in the early years of the state prior to setting the pillows prohibited inscriptions of a personal nature, and the Public Council backtracked from even allowing the inscription of the civilian degree, prior to the laying of the first pillows. In this way the prototype content of

402 

 An Unfinished Story

the Israeli military tombstone resembled the German military tombstone⁴ rather than the military tombstone in the British Commonwealth countries or the American military tombstone.⁵ The zeitgeist, where the group rather than the individual was accorded priority, the concept of unity of purpose, the notion that the fallen soldier belonged to the collective and to the nation, the shaping of the Israeli identity and the family’s consolation that their sacrifice was part of that same attainment that permitted the establishment of the state – all these served to underpin the uniformity and equality of the inscription. Such uniformity and equality were extreme and epitomized by noting the personal details of the fallen soldier, his Hebrew date of death, and the category of death on the basis of a few general purpose definitions that had been set in advance. From the mid-1950s, when the content prototype of the tombstone was shaped, and till the beginning of the 1990s, a minute but existing dynamic of change to the prototype occurred. This dynamic focused on the following details: the categories of death, noting the place of death for those who fell in battle, noting the profession “pilot” in 1968 and its abolition (upon the directive of the High Court of Justice) in 1975, noting “Navy” and deviations from the uniform inscription that were authorized by officials in the establishment and did not emanate from a change of policy. The dynamic of change was minute despite requests for substantial changes by the families, including requests for adding the military profession, detailing the circumstances of death, adding the civilian title, adding personal expressions, etc. – requests that with time assumed the form of petitions to the High Court of Justice. Three fortified barriers, two in practice and one potential, stymied change during that era: the first – the Public Council and the Division for Commemorating the Soldier; secondly – the majority of the family of bereavement (as a potential barrier); and third – the High Court of Justice. The Public Council as a policy-determining body, and the division as the executive body, blocked any changes. Since the defense ministers as a general practice adopted the council’s recommendations,⁶ this body enjoyed tremendous power and the ability to adopt decisions in all topics of the inscription and to implement them. The great majority of the council members believed in the idea that uniformity and equality must

4 Mosse (1990), ibid. 5 See Gibson and Ward (1989), p. 67. In New Zealand as well the government decided to prohibit the addition of personal inscriptions on the military graves. In this matter New Zealand differs from the other countries of the British Commonwealth. 6 It seems that there is no other example of a Public Council that serves alongside a government ministry whose decisions were adopted in such a complete fashion, as occurred in the case of the Public Council for Commemorating the Soldier.

An Unfinished Story 

 403

prevail in all the military cemeteries. The generation of parents to those who fell in the 1948 war, which was devoted to the values emphasizing the group and unity of purpose and felt itself responsible for shaping Israeli identity, served on the council for many years. A tradition of rotation, however surprising the matter may seem, did not exist in the council for decades, and in this manner the founding generation could implant the principles of uniformity and equality until they became almost axiomatic, indisputable and impervious to analysis. Furthermore, since in practice most council members were themselves bereaved parents rather than orphans or widows, then even if subsequently parents to those who fell during the 60s and 70s and even some from the 80s served on a council, they empathized with the fundamental values of 1948 and the years that the state was established and the way they were implemented in the military cemeteries. For that reason, even if beginning with the 1990s different voices could be heard on the council, they were a drop in the bucket. The decisive majority of families did not demand overturning the principles of the uniform inscription – either because the families themselves subscribed to the principles, or because they found a substitute in the embellishments or for any other reason. The important thing is that from the standpoint of the Public Council this state of affairs was interpreted as total agreement with its principles. Therefore it would not be an overstatement to view the behavior by most of the family of bereavement as a fortified barrier that assisted the council in preserving the principle of uniformity and equality in the inscription. The third barrier that existed during the period preceding the 1990s was the High Court of Justice that ruled in 1975 that it was the council’s prerogative to deal with the content of the inscription and decide upon it. Likewise it ruled that the principles of equality and uniformity in the inscription were secured in the Law of Military Cemeteries, 5710-1950, and in that respect it resorted to a statement of the justice minister when he presented the law to the Knesset in 1950, to the effect that “the military cemeteries must provide expression to the idea that all those who fell in the war shared in a single objective... military cemeteries are predicated on the uniform idea, that all devoted and gave their lives to one common objective.”⁷ Likewise the High Court of Justice endorsed the council’s argument, that via equality and uniformity in the inscription it sought to prevent any discrimination, emphasizing that “these are sensible words on a topic of the utmost sensitivity.”⁸ Furthermore, the High Court of Justice ruled that from the moment that the relatives of a fallen soldier had elected to bury him in a military cemetery rather than in a civilian cemetery, the fallen soldier was under the full 7 See above, p. 113. 8 See above, p. 165.

404 

 An Unfinished Story

“sovereignty” of the nation, and the rights of his relatives in everything related to changes in the uniform inscription had lapsed and the relatives had to submit to the norms and arrangements fixed by the Public Council. Changes to the uniform inscription that were adopted during those years as a result of the decisions of the Public Council and the High Court of Justice dealt with the categories of death, to denote the place of death and to note the profession. The main changes regarding the category of death were tied to the broader issue of suicide cases and to the vast range subsumed under the category “fell in the line of duty.” Adding the place of death to the notation of “fell in battle” gave expression to a liberal policy of uniformity that matured in the council during the 1960s, that consisted mainly of displaying sensitivity to a request by relatives in cases where there was no substantial impairment to uniformity. Nevertheless, the establishment of a policy of liberal uniformity was a blow to equality, because there was no guarantee that the relatives of those who had fallen in the past still possessed the ability to do now what had been denied them in the past. The prohibition on noting the military profession derived from a High Court of Justice ruling, and as a result it was no longer possible to note the word “pilot” and this as well represented a blow to equality in comparison with those who already had the word “pilot” noted on their tombs. From the beginning of the 1990s real changes occurred in the contents of the prototype and chiefly the option of adding to the tombstone an inscription conveying personal expression. Even in the uniform part of the inscription changes occurred, including the option to add the secular date of death and to add new categories of death. The agents of change in its more revolutionary aspects, namely granting the possibility to add the secular date and personal expressions (not on the pillow, but at the foot of the tombstone) came from the ranks of those who had prevented it in the past or those who had previously served as a potential barrier, namely the families, and as an actual barrier – the High Court of Justice. The great majority of Public Council members continued to oppose these changes. Following their lead the defense minister also opposed, although the senior legal echelons of the Defense Ministry and the State Attorney’s Office supported the changes. Although in the 1990s the first breaches were made in the barrier constituted by the council and the bonding of its members weakened, it still remained steadfast. But due to the rumblings of the High Court of Justice it was breached, and Defense Ministry lawyers and the Legislature had no recourse but to formulate rules for personal expression that had been set primarily by the ruling of the High Court of Justice. Regarding the location of the personal inscription the council exerted enormous influence, and on this matter it was abetted by the lawyers in the Defense Ministry and by the minister. Only subsequently, at the beginning of the third

An Unfinished Story 

 405

millennium, the council recommended expanding the possibilities for personal expression and changing the location. With regards to changes in the categories of death, the relatives of the fallen and the Legislature were the prime moving forces, and the Public Council received a finished product. By the time that the council at the beginning of the third millennium examined the rules of the uniform inscription, it initiated only a few changes to it. Those promoting the changes in the beginning of the 1990s were first and foremost a few families as well as the High Court of Justice. The actual number of “fighters” among the parents who brought about the changes with the aid of the High Court of Justice was quite small – a few isolated families – but these potentially represented a large number of families. It is hard to evaluate what was the ratio of these parents in the total number of bereaved families, but it is clear that they constituted an appreciable portion of the families who joined the family of bereavement from the 1980s. One can discern this not only by the significant increase in the embellishment phenomenon during those years, but also from the changes in the intensity of its components, in other words the inscriptions and visual prominence of the items comprising the embellishments. This blatancy effectively challenged the concept that the fallen soldier buried in a military cemetery was under the total sovereignty of the nation; the converse was true – this constituted a demand backed by actions that in the cemetery the division of sovereignty must accord the lion’s share to the parents. In other words, the demand was posed and secured by many families via the embellishments, and was expressed by a few families who proved obdurate over changes to the inscription, and on this issue they received assistance from the High Court of Justice. Of course, and as we have demonstrated above, obtaining the prerogative to the changes in inscription did not perforce mandate a termination or reduction of the embellishment phenomenon on the part of the families, because these were two methods that sought to convey the very same message. Various parties and complex processes sustained the vigorous demands by the families to allow them written expression on the tombstone that diverged from the uniform content prototype and we will enumerate them one by one. First, one cannot fail to establish a link between these obdurate and vigorous demands by the families that were assisted by the High Court of Justice (and of course the embellishment phenomenon) and the individualization process which gathered impetus in Israeli society from the late 1980s given the influence of the following factors: global processes; a more profound influence of Western culture by exploiting the power of the media and telecommunications; the decline in the power of the Labor Movement and the collapse of its collectivist values; privatization; immigration from Eastern Europe; sectoralization processes; political polarization in Israeli society that has become stronger since the Lebanon war;

406 

 An Unfinished Story

the demographic contraction of the founders’ generation including the weakening of its values and influence; the very passage of time from the genesis of the state and the years when the group and affiliation with it took center stage; the general feeling that Israeli identity had already been consolidated and therefore one could display liberality regarding principles that had previously been strictly observed. The Public Council was aware of the existence of the individualization processes, but most of its members refused to contend with this new situation and what it required in terms of the families’ rights with regards to their sons’ tombstones. The values of the Public Council referred to the group⁹ and to the values of the fledgling state, but the “young” family of bereavement already was elsewhere – in a place where the bulk of Israeli society was situated. The newly bereaved refused to embrace what the veterans in the family of bereavement had accepted. It was only natural that those who had recently joined the family would feel that the fallen soldier belonged exclusively to them, even if he was buried in a military cemetery. Was it conceivable in the new era that the fallen soldier belongs exclusively to the nation, and only the nation had a right of decision regarding his tombstone? Secondly the controversy in Israeli society surrounding the First Lebanon War – a controversy that split Israeli society, and toppled social axioms that had been accepted since the establishment of the state, only intensified as the years passed. This controversy subsequently induced many members of the public to view this war as superfluous and did not spare those who had fallen in that war. They did not enjoy public recognition, equivalent to those who had with their bodies conferred a state on “a silver platter” (the War of Independence), the liberation of Jerusalem (the Six-Day War) or those who had blocked the Syrian tanks on the path to the Sea of Galilee (the Yom Kippur War). In terms of the fallen from the Lebanon war it was hard to speak about “unity of purpose.” It seems that just as the public wanted to forget the war or make it forgettable, it subconsciously wanted to forget and make its fallen forgettable. The bereaved sensed that the nation in its entirety did not empathize with the fallen, it was divided and fragmented in its attitude towards them. Therefore, why should they allow the appa9 See for example YLA, protocol of the Public Council’s Permanent Committee meeting, 12.6.1987, p. 4, from the statement of Council Chairman H. Adar who said inter alia: “The principle that guides us is national-oriented and most inclusive embracing the entire spectrum in the broadest sense of all who have fallen, in other words if we are speaking of the concept of uniformity, if we speak of the concept of the equality of the fallen, if we speak about things that we must decide upon, then what we contemplate before us is the general interest. True, each soldier who falls is unique, unique to the family, unique to his place of residence, and unique to the state, but to our great sorrow there are by now 16,000 such details, so this perhaps gives us the gravitas in our mode of thinking.”

An Unfinished Story 

 407

ratus of the nation, in other words the rules of the military cemetery, to appropriate their beloved? They emphasized that he belonged to them and only to them and that no person or public had a right to deny them the personal expression on his tombstone or intervention in the shape and content of this expression. Thirdly, Israeli cynicism did not circumvent any sacred value from the past. Sacred cows were slaughtered one after the other, and the Army’s turn was not appreciably postponed. Beginning with the 1980s criticism of the Army became a daily occurrence. Within an ever-growing population, service in the Army was transformed from a positive value into duress. Many of those who fell in the 1980s and 1990s, save for those who fell in Lebanon, found their deaths in training, accidents, suicides and questionable suicides – circumstances of death that had no glory attached to them and they could not meet the description of “by their falling they gave us life.” The luster of “those who fell in the line of duty” was dimmed when from the very outset it played second fiddle and was subordinate to those who “fell in battle.” Bereavement in such circumstances remained personal and private, and the families wanted to give it full expression on the tombstone and its surroundings. The appropriation of the fallen by the nation as expressed in the uniformity and equality of the tombstone were totally unacceptable to the families.¹⁰ Fourth, the Supreme Court sitting as a High Court of Justice, that was characterized since the 1990s by its judicial activism under the leadership of Justice Barak, recognized the processes described above. This found expression in the court’s decision on the petitions that the families presented, rulings that created a turnabout in the principles of uniformity and equality and prompted the establishment of new rules. The passage of the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, in March 1992, inaugurated a new era in everything connected with the rulings of the High Court of Justice with reference to the voice of the individual versus the voice of the establishment.¹¹ In this fashion a new age was ushered in with regard to everything connected with the emphasis accorded to the dignity of both the bereaved families and the deceased, and the required balance between the principles of uniformity and equality and the principle of human dignity received consideration in the issue of the military tombstone inscription. Thus following the petition by the Wechselbaum family, the fundamental ruling was handed down in 1995 that permitted the inscription conveying personal expression. The State Attorney’s Office and the lawyers of the Defense Ministry had already anticipated a few years previously – given the legal changes – the need for greater flexibility vis-à-vis the families as well as the final verdict of the High Court of Justice. Because of their honest recommendations they were virtually regarded as enemies 10 See also the book by Rosental (2001). 11 See also Almog and Salzberger (1999); Bronstein (2002).

408 

 An Unfinished Story

of the Public Council, where most of its members had not reconciled themselves with granting the option of an inscription conveying personal expression. In any case, it was but a short hop from the decision of the High Court of Justice till details established by the Legislature during the years 1996-1997 regarding the principles of the personal inscription and its place at the foot of the tombstone. Nevertheless the path was strewn with controversies among the Knesset members and between them and the Defense Ministry regarding the place of the personal inscription, disputes that reflected profound differences in outlook. Still prior to this, in April 1991, the High Court of Justice handed down a ruling allowing the notation of the secular date on the tombstone pillow (the Ginosar High Court of Justice case), a ruling that helped pave the way for the ruling regarding the option for a personal inscription. In practice the High Court of Justice created in 1991 two principles. The first principle was that it did not follow that the moment the relative of a fallen soldier had elected to bury his beloved in the military cemetery he forfeited his right to appeal the related directives, i.e., the framework of uniformity. The High Court of Justice by this ruling effectively reversed what its predecessor had set down in 1975, to the effect that at the moment that a soldier was buried in the military cemetery, the rights of his relatives to him in everything concerning changes in the uniform inscription had elapsed, for the fallen soldier was now under the total sovereignty of the nation, and only the inscription rules that it had prescribed were applicable. The ruling of the current High Court of Justice, written 16 years later, was handed down in a different era; the High Court of Justice already recognized the fact that one could not expropriate the rights of the relatives to their beloved fallen soldier, because he was not under the total jurisdiction of the state but also under the jurisdiction of his relatives, and these had the right to intervene in the inscription on the tombstone in the military cemetery, as long as it did not constitute a substantial impairment to the principle of uniformity. The principle of the substantial impairment test to the rules of uniformity was the second principle handed down by the High Court of Justice. Since the High Court of Justice panel perceived that the addition of the secular date does not substantially impair uniformity, one had to avoid substantial injury to the sentiments of relatives that would be incurred by not writing the secular date and one should therefore allow its addition. When the High Court of Justice ruled on the Ginosar petition and set down new principles regarding “the test of substantial uniformity,” the lawyers from the Defense Ministry could not ignore their consequence. As opposed to the Public Council’s inclination they recommended compromising on a number of petitions by the families that were pending at that time including the demand to omit mention of the Peace for Galilee Operation on the tombstones of their beloved who fell during the first stages of the war. Indeed such compromises were

An Unfinished Story 

 409

reached in the end. In one case, the formula “fell in the line of duty in Lebanon” was set, and in another case it was written “fell in battle in Lebanon.” Given the demands by parents and the High Court of Justice ruling in the Ginosar case, the Rehabilitation Branch tried to balance somewhat the obduracy on the council and attempted to influence the council to accede to requests for insubstantial changes of inscription that did not mar uniformity. A majority of the council agreed in the early 1990s to add the place of death (contingent upon a request by a relative) even in cases of “fell in the line of duty,” and in this way upgraded the prestige of this category of death, and in cases of operational activity that were not battle related – even without the need for a relative’s request. For those same reasons noting a fallen soldier’s date of birth as a substitute or addition to noting the fallen soldier’s age was authorized. The revolutionary changes in the content prototype of the tombstone that began during the 1990s regarding the inscription of the secular date, expunging the “Peace for Galilee Operation” and permitting an inscription conveying personal expression are a result of High Court of Justice rulings. Ostensibly, these rulings would not have come about and quickly been transformed into rules sanctioned by law had the Public Council agreed to the requests by the Ginosar family and the Wechselbaum family. But we can freely assume that these changes would have come about in any case, because the changes that occurred in Israeli society including its attitude to bereavement are sufficiently profound, and they contributed towards ending the expropriation of the fallen by the nation – and most definitely those who fell during the 1980s and 1990s. These changes would have resulted in pressures by the families on the issue of the inscription, exactly as occurred on the issue of the embellishments, that themselves already comprised personal expressions and inscriptions. If the establishment had not regulated these eruptions in a legal fashion by instituting rules for personal inscription and the option of writing the secular date, the distinction between the military cemetery and a civilian cemetery, where few restrictions – if any – exist would have constricted even further. It would appear that the words of Judge Haim Adar, the chairman of the Public Council, who stated in May 1991 with regards to the embellishments and demands on the part of the parents to delete “Peace for Galilee Operation” from the tombstone, hit the mark: “Must everything change with us upon the slightest or tempestuous breeze? Do all values change from one day to the next?... the erosion, and to my great sorrow, this is like everything else in the country, is reflected in the military cemeteries.”¹² One way or another, once the 12 DMA, folder 27348, file 992, protocol of the Public Council meeting, 5.13.1991, with the participation of Defense Minister M. Arens, p. 13, from the statement by H. Adar. See also the interview by Y. London with Professor E. Sivan, Yediot Ahronot, Supplement, 4.12.2002, p. 26.

410 

 An Unfinished Story

revolutionary changes in the inscription had been ratified they hampered uniformity and equality, for even if they also applied to tombstones of those who had died previously, it was not possible to guarantee that relatives of these fallen soldiers remained who could take advantage of the new rules that had been established in the present. *** At the close of the 1990s additional changes were introduced in the uniform inscription, and they are connected to the categories of death. Most of the changes were introduced by the Defense Ministry and the Legislature given changes that were mandated and after all the principles of the inscription were anchored in law: applying the category “passed away” to reserve major generals and commanders in chief, as was already common practice; “fell in a terror attack” while noting the place of the attack – given the sharp increase in the number of those who fell in terror attacks; “fell in operational activity” noting the place of death – for situations where the soldier did not “fall in battle” but which were more operational than “fell in the line of duty,” and also given the growing parental dissatisfaction with the category “fell in the line of duty.” Other changes in the categories of death were related to the helicopter disaster in early 1997, at the very same time where the rules governing the inscription were fixed by law. As opposed to previous helicopter disasters where the formula “fell in the line of duty” had been set, now in practice three versions were determined – the first formula as set by the Division for Commemorating the Soldier was “fell in the line of duty in the helicopter accident at Shear Yashuv”; the second was set by the Public Council following demands by parents for various versions and its text was “fell in the line of duty on the way to operational activity in Lebanon”; and the third version that was requested by many families who organized under the umbrella of a nonprofit organization and ratified by the High Court of Justice was “fell on the way to operational activity in Lebanon in the helicopter disaster at Shear Yashuv.” The very initiative taken by the Division for Commemorating the Soldier to depart from its custom and devote a different inscription to the current helicopter disaster as opposed to the inscription that had been prescribed in other helicopter accidents can attest that the division, known for its rigidity as an establishment body implementing the policy of the council and the Defense Ministry, consciously or subconsciously recognized the changes that had occurred in society. The individualization processes and the privatization of bereavement did not allow it to ignore the uniqueness of the case. This was not the case with the Yasur model helicopter crash that took place 20 years previously. The demands by the

An Unfinished Story 

 411

families of those who fell in the helicopter disaster were striking in terms of the wide variety of categories of death that they demanded. Every version was accompanied by detailed arguments – providing instructive testimony on individualization processes and the challenge to the old approach that appropriated the fallen soldier to the nation and preserving for the nation the right to determine the uniform inscription. Consternation already prevailed in the council; many of its members refused to march along the well trodden path. They vigorously insisted that the principles of the past no longer corresponded to the reality of the present: “We are embarking today on an age of privatization… this is a malady that everybody seeks to be an only child… if today we were to come up with a formula that solves the problem of this group and responds to most needs, tomorrow we will encounter a new problem… if this is so important to them there will be other people for whom it will be important in the future and this will only get worse and worse. In order to prevent future deviations in all directions let us do something wide scale…” The force of these statements is even stronger, because they were uttered at a time when the turnabout in the inscription conveying personal expression had already occurred. In any event, even the alternative that the council decided upon making the helicopter disaster unique and distinguishing it from other incidents was a step closer to the demand by the parents and for the first time employed the category “operational activity.” But this substitute was still a far cry from the demand of the families, and they attained their demand only with the aid of the High Court of Justice. The council itself could not go so far and part in practice from the principle of equality. *** The dynamic of changes to the Israeli military tombstone over 50 years reflects the dynamic of changes in Israeli society and culture. The Public Council – as adamant as it could be in its efforts to preserve the values of the past – could not withstand the strongest factor of all, namely the rapidly changing reality, that which opened the military cemetery over the course of time to almost all the security forces without the appropriate legal arrangements. In the large military cemeteries today it is not difficult – in the first decades of the 21st century – to distinguish between the various periods in the history of the state according to the differences between the tombstones and their surroundings. A visit to these places will provide us not only with a concise summary of the brief lives of the fallen and the history of our wars and what occurred in between; it will also tell us our life story. And perhaps it is not fortuitous that our sages have traditionally referred to the cemetery also by the term “house of the living.”

Bibliography Archives AA = Army Archives, Tel Hashomer Aryeh Degani Private Archives, Jerusalem (uncatalogued) CZA = Central Zionist Archives, Jerusalem DFCSA = Division for Commemorating the Soldier Archives, Tel Aviv DMA = Defense Ministry Archives, Tel Aviv FADCA = Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee Archives, Jerusalem (uncatalogued) JNFP = Jewish National Fund Photographic Archives KA = Knesset Archives, Jerusalem RMA = Reuven Mass Private Archives, Jerusalem (uncatalogued) SCA = Supreme Court Archives SIA = State of Israel Archives, Jerusalem YLA = Yad Labanim Archives, Tel Aviv (uncatalogued)

Letters to the Author Letter from Raya Harnik, a bereaved mother, on 12.5.2003 Letter from Supreme Court Justice Elyakim Rubinstein, formerly legal advisor to the Defense Ministry and Attorney General, on 1.10.2004

Oral Testimonies Abels Sarah, a bereaved mother, telephone interview, 9.29.2006 Bargur Yona, a bereaved father, Ramat Hasharon, 6.4.2006 Ben Yitzhak Yosef, a bereaved father, Beer Tuviah, 4.5.2002 Prat Itamar, geologist, telephone interview ,6.5.2003 Rappaport Rabbi Shabtai, telephone interview, 6.30.2003 Wechselbaum Shmuel (Sami), a bereaved father, telephone interview, 11.15.2006 Yaron Pinhas, a bereaved father, a member of the Public Council and the chairman of the Tombstone Subcommittee during the years 1974-1997, Kfar Saba, 2.5.2003 Yekutiel Zvi, a bereaved father and a member of the Public Council, telephone interview, 6.30.2003

Bibliography 

 413

CDs and Internet websites Defense Ministry website – The Division for Commemorating the Soldier http://cem.va.gov/cem/hist_histhome.asp Israeli National Picture Collection Website Responsa Project CD Takdin CD

Newspapers and House Organs Ha’aretz Maariv Siah Shakulim Yediot Ahronot

Books and Articles Almog, Oz. 2004. Farewell to ‘Srulik’: Changing Values among the Israeli Elite. Haifa and Or Yehuda: Haifa University and Zmora Bitan [in Hebrew]. Almog, Shulamit, and Eli Mordechai Salzberger. 1999. “The Private Voice within Public Law.” Mishpat Umimshal, Law and Government in Israel 5, 1, pp. 9-13 [in Hebrew]. Azaryahu, Maoz. 1993. “A Tale of Two Cities: Commemorating the Israeli War of Independence in Tel Aviv and Haifa.” Cathedra for the History of Eretz Israel and its Yishuv 68, pp. 98-125 [in Hebrew]. Azaryahu, Maoz. 1995. State Cults: Celebrating Independence and Commemorating the Fallen in Israel 1948-1956. Beersheba: Ben-Gurion University [in Hebrew]. Azaryahu, Maoz. 2005. “Mt. Herzl: A Historical Outline of Israel’s National Cemetery in Jerusalem.” Horizons in Geography 64-65, pp. 369-383 [in Hebrew]. Bar-Gal, Yoram, and Maoz Azaryahu. 1997. “Israeli Cemeteries and Jewish Tradition.” In Land and Community: Geography in Jewish Studies, edited by Harold Brodsky, pp. 105-125. Bethesda, MD: University Press of Maryland. Bar-Levav, Avriel, ed. 2004. Cemeteries (Pe’amim 98-99 – special issue). Jerusalem: Yad Yitzhak Ben Zvi [in Hebrew]. Benvenisti, Meron. 1990. Jerusalem’s City of the Dead. Jerusalem: Keter [in Hebrew]. Bronstein, Galit. 2002. “Were They All Our Sons?” Hamishpat 13, pp. 54-65 [in Hebrew]. Cassouto, David. 1989. “Monuments and Their Significance for Commemoration.” In Galed, edited by Ilana Shamir, pp. 14-15. Tel Aviv: Ministry of Defense [in Hebrew]. Christie, Norm M. 1996. For King and Empire: The Canadians at Passchendaele, October to November 1917. Winnipeg: Bunker to Bunker Books. Doron, Gideon, and Udi Lebel. 2004. The Politics of Bereavement. Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad [in Hebrew]. Drory, Zeev, and Udi Lebel. 2005. “Public Relations of Death: Conflicts of Memory in a National Memorial Site: Mount Eytan Museum.” Democratic Culture 9, pp. 49-84 [in Hebrew].

414 

 Bibliography

Eisenstadt, Shmuel Noah. 1989. “Processes and Trends in the Shaping of Israeli Society.” In People and State, Israeli Society, edited by Shmuel Stempler, pp. 48-60. Tel Aviv: Ministry of Defense [in Hebrew]. Francaviglia, Richard V. 1971. “The Cemetery As An Evolving Cultural Landscape.” AAG 61, 3, pp. 501-509. Frumkin, Gad. 1955. The Path of a Judge in Jerusalem. Tel Aviv: Dvir [in Hebrew]. Fuchs, Ron. 1996.”The Planning of the British War Cemeteries in Mandatory Palestine.” Cathedra for the History of Eretz Israel and its Yishuv 79, pp. 114-139 [in Hebrew]. Gal-Peer, Ilan. 1987. “The War Cemetery in Beer-Sheba: Two Battles.” In Sefer Zeev Vilnay, II, edited by Eli Schiller, pp. 216-224. Jerusalem: Ariel [in Hebrew]. Gibson, Edwin, and G. Kingsley Ward. 1989. Courage Remembered: The Story Behind the Construction and Maintenance of the Commonwealth’s Military Cemeteries and Memorials of the Wars of 1914-1918 and 1939-1945. London: HMSO. Government Yearbooks for the Years 1950-2003 [in Hebrew]. Gur, Batya. 1998. Stone for a Stone. Tel Aviv: Keter [in Hebrew]. HaKohen, A. 1996. “The Cumulative Effect of Collective Memory: Uniform Planning for British Military Cemeteries Worldwide.” Binyan Veadrichalut 50, pp. 50, 64, 70 [in Hebrew]. Hendel, Yehudit. 1991. The Mountain of Losses. Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad [in Hebrew]. Holt, Dean W. 1992. American Military Cemeteries. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company. Hurst, Sidney C. 1929. The Silent Cities. London: Methuen & Co. Inbar, Zvi. 2005. The Scales of Justice and the Sword, I-II. Tel Aviv: Maarchot [in Hebrew]. Israeli, Haim. 2005. A Life Story: 50 Years in the Service of 14 Ministers of Defense. Tel Aviv: Miskal [in Hebrew]. Kenyon, Frederic G. 1918. War Graves. London: HMSO. Kliout, Nurit. 1994. “The Remnants of Imperial Scenes: Symbols of Britain and the British Commonwealth in the Land of Israel.” Ariel 16, pp. 113-222 [in Hebrew]. Knesset Protocols: 1950-2003 [in Hebrew]. Levitzki, Naomi. 2001. Your Honor. Jerusalem: Keter [in Hebrew]. Longworth, Philip. 1985. The Unending Vigil: A History of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission 1917-1984. London: Leo Cooper in association with Secker & Warburg. Malkinson, Ruth, Shimshon Rubin, and Eliezer Witztum, eds. 1993. Loss and Bereavement in Jewish Society in Israel. Tel Aviv: Ministry of Defense [in Hebrew]. Mosse, George L. 1981. “The Cult of the Fallen Soldier: National Cemeteries and National Revival.” Zmanim – A Historical Quarterly 6, pp. 3-13 [in Hebrew]. Mosse, George L. 1990. Fallen Soldiers: Reshaping the Memory of the World Wars. New York: Oxford University Press. Naveh, Hannah. 1993. Captives of Mourning: Perspectives of Mourning in Hebrew Literature. Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad [in Hebrew]. Naveh, Hannah. 1998. “On Loss, Bereavement and Mourning in the Israeli Experience.” Alpayim – A Multidisciplinary Publication for Contemporary Thought and Literature 16, pp. 85-120 [in Hebrew]. Official Documents: Legislative Proposals [in Hebrew]. Official Documents: Ordinance Compendium [in Hebrew]. Official Documents: The Statute Book [in Hebrew]. Ostfeld, Zehava. 2000. The Defense Ministry in Its Early Years. Tel Aviv: Ministry of Defense [in Hebrew]. Prat, Itamar. 1987. “The Builders Coveted This Stone.” Teva Vaaretz 29, 4, pp. 12-13 [in Hebrew].

Bibliography 

 415

Robertson, Iain, and Penny Richards. 2003. Studying Cultural Landscapes. London: Routledge. Rosenthal, Ruvik. 2001. Is Bereavement Dead? Jerusalem: Keter [in Hebrew]. Rubinstein, Elyakim. 1997. “Basic Law: Human Dignity and Personal Freedom and Security Authorities.” Tel Aviv University Law Review 21, 1, pp. 46-49 [in Hebrew]. Schepens, Luc. 1974. In Pace: Military Cemeteries in Flanders. Amsterdam: Lannoo. Schiller, Eli, and Gavriel Barkai, eds. 2006. Morning Will Rise Thanks to Their Blood: Memory and Commemoration in Israel. Jerusalem: Ariel [in Hebrew]. Services and Eligibility for Bereaved Parents – Explanations and Information. 2002. Tel Aviv: Ministry of Defense [in Hebrew]. Shamir, Ilana, ed. 1975. Commemoration and Its Significance: Various Aspects of a Commemoration of IDF War Dead. Tel Aviv: Ministry of Defense [in Hebrew]. Shamir, Ilana. 1996. Commemoration and Remembrance: Israeli Society’s Way of Molding its Collective Memory Patterns. Tel Aviv: Am Oved [in Hebrew]. Shamir, Ilana. 2003. So They Shall not Be as though They Had not Been, Establishing State-run Commemorative Patterns: The Unit for the Commemoration of Fallen Soldiers. Tel Aviv: Ministry of Defense [in Hebrew]. Sivan, Emmanuel. 1991. The 1948 Generation: Myth, Profile and Memory. Tel Aviv: Maarchot [in Hebrew]. Statman, Daniel. 1996. “On Nationalism, Liberalism and What Cannot Be Learned from the Kastenbaum Case.” Tel Aviv University Law Review 20, 1, pp. 239-253 [in Hebrew]. The Division for Commemorating the Soldier, A Review of Its Activities from Its Inception until Today. 1960. Tel Aviv: Ministry of Defense [in Hebrew]. The Ministry of Defense, The Division (The Unit) for Commemorating the Soldier, Reports for the Years 1969-1995 [in Hebrew]. The Fifth Annual Report of the Imperial War Graves Commission 1923-1924. 1925. London. The Graves of the Fallen, The Imperial War Graves (cited in Additional High Court of Justice Deliberations 3299/93). The King’s Pilgrimage. 1922. London: Hodder and Stoughton. The State Comptroller, Annual Report Number 33. 1982. Jerusalem: Ministry of State Comptroller [in Hebrew]. The State Comptroller, Annual Report Number 46. 1995. Jerusalem: Ministry of State Comptroller [in Hebrew]. The State Ombudsman, Annual Report Number 22. 1995. Jerusalem: The State Ombudsman [in Hebrew]. Their Name Liveth: Some Pictures of Commonwealth War Cemeteries 1914-1918, 1939-1945. 1946. London: Methuen. Tucazinsky, Rabbi Yechiel Michel. 1960. The Bridge of Life, Second Edition with Addenda and Emendations. Jerusalem: Salomon [in Hebrew]. Waldinberg, Rabbi Eliezer Yehudah. 1984. Responsa Tzitz Eliezer. Jerusalem: E. Waldinberg [in Hebrew]. Ware, Fabian Arthur Goulstone. 1937. The Immortal Heritage: An Account of the Work and Policy of the Imperial War Graves Commission during Twenty Years 1917-1937. Cambridge: The University Press. Young, Brian J. 2003. Respectable Burial: Montreal’s Mount Royal Cemetery. Montreal: McGillQueen’s University Press.

Index of names and subjects Abels, S. 100, 411 Adar, Haim 7-9, 13-15, 18, 24, 40, 67, 68, 146, 157, 169, 170, 174, 177, 180-184, 186-189, 192-195, 197, 369, 371, 373, 377 a-Din, Amal Nassir 9 Adiv, Shmuel 301 Aharonowitz, Zalman 7 Aluf, M. 59, 166 Alufi, P. 18 Amir, Y. 2, 7, 11, 43, 45, 62 Arab al-Heib (Bedouin Tribe) 144 Arad, Nili 180, 183, 201, 203, 206, 215, 221, 233, 240, 241 Ardan, M. 153 Arens, Moshe 9, 13-15, 24, 175, 180, 195-198, 325, 379, 382, 409 Argov, Nehemiah 127-129 Avidar, Yosef 9, 153, 154 Avigur, S. 1, 7, 25, 28, 43, 44, 88, 104, 105, 108, 109 Avinoam (Grossman), Reuven 9, 153 Avinoam, Yitzhak 194, 195, 208 Avishar, Pinhas 9 Avital, Sam 164 Azaryahu, Maoz x, 2, 5, 11 Babian, R. 325 Bach, Gavriel 196, 307 Bar Tikva, D. 371 Bar, Ruth 71, 72 Barad, Y. 179, 183 Barak, Aharon 112, 202, 209, 211, 213-217, 219-221, 223-226, 230, 231, 233, 235, 236, 238, 248, 307, 318, 407 Barak, Ehud xi, 77, 304 Baram, Uzi 283, 284 Bargur, Ayelet 280, 305 Bargur, Sarit and Yona, Family 241, 282, 304-306, 308-311, 313, 329, 331 Bargur, Ziv 204, 205, 315 Bar-Lev, Haim 57, 58, 68, 69, 76, 77 Bdolach, M. 10, 115, 138 Begin, Binyamin 277, 283 Begin, Menachem 60, 64, 66

Beinisch, D. 312, 313 Ben Ami, Shlomo 77 Ben Amitai, Yisrael 9, 20-22, 204, 223, 226, 229, 231, 237, 243-244, 253, 255, 292, 385, 386 Ben Asher, Haim 114 Ben David, H. 105 Ben Eliezer, Binyamin 142, 282, 283 Ben Gamliel, Shimon 344, 369 Ben Gurion, David 2, 6, 11, 25, 44, 105, 118, 127, 128, 400 Ben Moshe, S. 153 Ben Shem, E. 81, 330 Ben Yair, Michael 227 Ben Yitzhak, Mordechai 155 Ben Yitzhak, Yosef 156, 412 Ben Zeev, Nehama and Gideon, Family 157-165, 168, 213, 239 Ben Zeev, Zohar 157, 168 Ben-Yosef, A. 51, 52 Ben-Zvi, Rahel Yanait 7, 16 Ben-Zvi, Yitzhak 6, 9, 30, 96, 109, 118, 121, 125, 126, 130-134, 141 Berenson, Zvi 162 Bezalel, Esther x Bibi, Yigal 267 Boker, A. 159 Branch for Commemorating the Soldier 3, 82-84, 87, 190 (The) Brigade 43, 44 Cassouto, David 9, 10, 153, 154, 163 Category of Death 140, 150, 156, 157, 186, 277, 303, 324, 325, 402, 404, 409 Cheshin, Mishael 307 Chico, Oren 23, 98, 259, 263, 267, 270, 271, 303, 312, 325 Ciechanower, Yosef 55, 59 Cohen, B. 126 Cohen, M.A. 338 Cohen, Moshe 116, 117, 184, 240 Cohen, P. 78 Cohen, Yehuda 108, 175 Cohen, Zvi 8, 73, 181, 290, 291

Index of names and subjects 

Cohen-Avidov, M. 240 Collective, Collectivism (Commemoration, Principle, Perception) 7, 35, 163, 164, 196, 216, 232, 236, 250, 251, 265-267, 269, 325, 326, 385, 398, 402, 405 Dagoni, N. 46, 49, 152 Date of Birth, Death 102, 103, 105-109, 126-128, 131, 133, 135, 137, 188-190, 194-196, 275, 276, 285, 290, 291, 402, 404, 409 Dayan, Moshe 10, 16, 37 Degani, Aryeh 6, 37, 38 Dekel (Krasner), Yosef 1-3, 6-8, 16, 28-35, 38, 43, 47, 48, 82-84, 86, 89, 90, 92, 95, 96, 104-111, 118, 122-125, 127-130, 132-134, 136, 137, 140-144, 335, 336, 339 Department for Commemorating the Soldier 9, 95, 121, 122, 124, 140, 141, 167, 171, 174 Department for Families and Commemoration 2 Dimanshtein, Y. 368 Dinburg (Dinur), Ben Zion 118, 121 Dinstein, Z. 7, 11 Discourse of the Bereaved, Magazine 9, 37, 185, 187, 369, 370, 378, 379, 382, 387 Division for Commemorating the Soldier x, 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 11, 13, 16-17, 25, 28, 30, 33, 34, 36-39, 42, 45, 47, 49, 56 ,62-64, 78, 81, 85-87, 90, 92, 96-98, 100, 104-106, 108-110, 118-120, 123, 125, 130, 131, 136, 137, 142, 143, 146, 147, 151, 156-160, 168, 170, 171, 177-179, 185, 186, 189, 195, 196, 200, 201, 225, 237-239, 242, 243, 247, 253-255, 258, 262, 273, 278, 281, 286, 289, 291, 295, 298, 300, 301, 304, 305, 309, 314, 315, 323, 332, 335, 337, 339-343, 366-368, 370, 372, 374, 376, 377, 383, 385-387, 389, 390-392, 394, 396, 398, 399, 401, 402, 410 Dori, Yaakov 105, 119, 381 Dorner, Dalia 231, 249-251, 328 Dovev, G. 81 Dror, S. 225, 242, 257 Druyan, Zvi 49, 149

 417

Einav, H. 46, 51 Eitan, M. 266 Embellishments (Tombstone Embellishment Phenomenon) 209, 216, 225, 228, 229, 232, 234, 237, 238, 254, 255, 257, 266, 274, 276, 283, 286, 335-340, 376-380, 383-396, 399-401, 403, 405, 409 Eshkol, Levi 9, 16, 50, 64 Eshkoli, Aharon Zeev 2, 105 Etzioni, Moshe 162 Eyyal, Shmuel 70 Fink, A. 18, 57, 58, 154, 174, 340, 371 Fordes, G. 186 Fried, A. 384 Friend, Dr. 44 Frischman, Yeshayahu 8, 37-39, 54, 55, 154, 159, 342 Fuld, Bracha 64 Gavish, Yehuda 9, 41, 79, 316, 322-325 Gazit, S. 44, 45 Giladi, Amnon 206 Giladi, David 116, 169, 191, 205, 206, 213, 229, 247, 248, 294, 372, 374, 375, 387, 388 Ginosar, Shahar 195, 196 Ginosar, Yossi 182, 195, 201, 204, 214, 219 Ginzburg, R. and Z. 198 Golad, A. 2, 26, 109 Gold, Z. 92 Goldberg, Eliezer 209, 211, 213, 231, 234, 248, 251 Gonen, A. 317 Gonen, Aviv 319, 320 Gonen, Tami 319 Gordon, A.D. 93 Goren, Yaakov 378 Gorni, Uriel 37-39, 58, 59, 163, 166 Gotlieb, Micah 319 Gotlieb, Yaakov 319 Government Yearbook 2, 9, 35, 141, 142 Greenberg, B. 51 Greenberg, Yaakov 115 Greenfeld, Y. 30 Greenwald, A. 384

418 

 Index of names and subjects

Gross, Zvia 15, 22, 23, 104, 207, 208, 254, 259, 263, 268, 270-271, 276-278, 282, 298, 304, 306, 325 Guber, Ephraim 148 Guber, Rivka 9, 16, 148, 200, 297, 342 Guber, Zvi 148 Guberman, S. 14 Gur, Motta 387, 388 Haber, A. 200, 201, 204 Hadar, Zvi 55 Haganah 1, 44, 60, 127 Hager, M. 339 Haramati, L. 185 Harari, Yizhar 114 Harel, Yehuda 27, 279, 280 Harnik Family 289 Harnik, Guni 184 Harnik, Raya 182, 184 Hazan, Naomi 267, 268, 271, 272 Hebrew Date 105-109, 121, 122, 124-126, 132, 133, 144, 145, 188, 189, 191, 192, 194-196, 132, 133, 144, 145, 188, 189, 191, 192, 194-196, 198, 252, 275, 276, 285, 333, 402 Helicopter Disaster (also, Helicopter Accident) 278, 289, 304, 312, 314, 315, 317, 322, 324-329, 332, 389, 410, 411 Hendel, Y. 250, 335 High Court of Justice, Bargur 241, 280, 281, 304-306, 308-311, 313, 327, 329, 331 High Court of Justice, Ben Zeev 61, 62, 158-167, 172, 186, 187, 197, 213, 239 High Court of Justice, Ginosar 181-185, 195-198, 201, 202, 204, 207-210, 212, 214, 215, 217-219, 229, 232, 248, 289, 292, 306, 307, 408, 409 High Court of Justice, Spiegel 177-184, 268, 289 High Court of Justice, Wechselbaum 167, 203-205, 208-211, 213, 216-221, 223-229, 231, 234, 236-238, 241, 245, 246, 251-253, 256, 257, 263, 264, 268, 274, 275, 281, 289, 296-298, 304-307, 322, 336, 384-389, 395, 396, 407, 409 Hiram, Asher 86-88, 97 Horin, B. 122

Human Dignity and Liberty, Basic Law xiv, 112, 200-202, 209, 213-215, 218, 219, 223-225, 231, 234, 248, 326, 386, 407, 415 IDF Widows and Orphans Organization 17, 24 IZL 1, 60, 62, 119 Kadmoni, A. 106 Kahalani, Avigdor 74, 280 Kargman, Yisrael 10 Kasher, Asa 386, 387 Kaspi, Z. 132 Katz, David 319 Katz, G. 292, 335 Katz, Mickey 319 Katz, Yossi (Member of Knesset) 74 Keene, N. 44 Kestenbaum 190, 193, 194, 198, 202 Kinarti, S. 342 Kitt, K. 1, 26, 84, 109 Kochanowski, M. 14 Krein, G. 126 Kushnir, Shimon 9, 148, 153, 154, 341 Landau, Moshe 162 Landau, Uzi 282, 283 Lang, T. 301 Lautenberg, Y. 78, 331, 386, 393 Lavie, S. 139 Lavon, Pinhas 43, 45, 137 Law of Military Cemeteries x, 5, 14, 15, 27, 43, 50, 55, 60, 62, 63, 69, 70, 72-74, 79, 80, 110, 112, 114, 117, 122, 200, 201, 213, 214, 219, 220, 232, 273, 306, 312, 323, 338, 403 Lebanon War (see also Peace for Galilee Operation) 18, 169, 177-182, 184, 289, 300, 301, 373, 405, 406 Lehi 1, 60, 119 Lerman, D. 126, 132 Lev, A. 309 Levi, Gad 318 Levi, Shiloh 318 Levin, Dov 218, 219, 221, 229, 237, 240, 250 Levin, Shlomo 196, 216, 231, 249-251, 307 Levitzki, Naomi 216

Index of names and subjects 

Lifschitz, A. 230 Lifschitz, D. 256 Lifschitz, Naftali 191, 221, 222, 224, 377, 381 Lindzen, M. 205 Lischansky, A. 65, 74, 167, 198, 221 Lischansky, Yosef 60, 63, 64 Litvin, Z. 169, 200 Livnat, Limor 219, 220 London, Y. 409 Lubinski, Dr. 44 Lurie, A. 184, 231, 337 Malz, Yaakov 209, 211, 212, 217, 218, 226 Mass, Oren x Mass, Reuven x, 9, 16, 92, 93, 118-120, 128, 129, 131, 133, 134, 137, 139, 140, 147, 148, 152-155, 339-341, 345 Matza, Eliyahu 231, 234, 249, 313 Meirov, S. (see also Avigur, S.) 3 Melet Family 223, 238 Melet, Amir 387 Melet, Shula 223, 237, 297, 387 Meridor, Dan 74 Merom, H. 269 Meron, Yehuda 339, 340 Mintz, Adi 78, 81, 330-331 Mintz, Benyamin 114 Misheiker, Gilad 317 Misheiker, Jonathan 317 Mofaz, Shaul 79-81 Mordechai, Yitzhak 19, 22, 74, 276, 280, 285, 305, 306, 309, 325, 384 Mosan Levi, H. 11 Mosse, George x, 82, 104, 216, 232, 399, 402 Muallem, Aryeh 76-79, 100 Naot, Y. 142 Necht, M. 29, 33, 44-46, 49, 106, 109, 122, 123, 142-144 Neeman, Yaakov 167, 231-233, 235, 237-242, 246, 306 Neeman, Yitzhak 208, 379-381 Netzer, Moshe 195, 370, 377 Nissim, Moshe 267, 271, 272 Nusilevich, Y. 111

 419

Official Documents 6, 11, 12, 27, 43, 110, 114, 117, 118, 167, 263-265, 273, 274, 276, 299, 304, 338 Ohana, Ayelet x Or, Ori 282, 284 Or, Theodore 196 Orbach, M. 119, 143, 149, 150 Palint, R. 1 Pamatanke, M. 125 Peace for Galilee Operation 19, 169, 177-184, 302, 339, 408, 409 Pearlman, N. 13, 14, 23, 66, 72, 74, 220, 221, 236, 253, 256, 257, 268, 371, 377 Peled, Benny 165, 166 Pelkowicz, B. 80 Peres, Shimon 22, 30, 37-39, 54, 55, 125, 134, 136, 140, 143, 144, 166, 276, 279, 335, 367, 368, 289 Peri, A. 6 Persich, Yitzhak 35, 36, 89, 91, 94, 95, 98, 115, 116, 126-128, 130, 133-135, 144 Personal, Individual (Process, Component, Principle, Expression) viii, 101, 103, 104, 111-113, 124, 147, 154, 155, 158, 163, 170, 200, 203, 207, 209-220, 222, 223, 225-240, 242, 243, 246, 248-251, 253-259, 262-276, 278-284, 286-290, 298, 304-307, 309-313, 316, 318-320, 322, 323, 326, 380, 385, 386, 388-390, 393, 395, 396, 399-403, 404, 407-409, 411 Piron, M. 342, 343 Plotnitzky, Zeev 115 Porat, Hanan 283, 284 Poraz, Avraham 219-221, 236 Prat, I. 92, 412 Prinz Katz, Michal x, 395 Profession (Military, Civilian) 152, 157-164, 186-188, 286, 334, 402, 404 Puterman, Z. 337 Rabin, Yitzhak 8, 12-15, 17, 18, 37, 40, 44, 50, 57, 66, 68, 70, 76, 77, 179, 187, 204, 221, 227, 228, 230, 231, 237, 245, 253, 256, 257, 276, 371-373, 377-379, 382, 384, 386, 389, 394, 400

420 

 Index of names and subjects

Ran, Shlomo Zvi 148, 186 Rappaport, S. 108 Rashba, Naava 14, 15, 17, 66, 166, 369 Rehabilitation Branch 9, 22, 23, 38, 58, 67, 75-77, 80, 91, 156, 174, 180, 224, 259, 263, 270, 278, 279, 290, 293, 294, 303, 312, 332, 340, 366, 369, 371, 372, 409 Reich, H. 128, 130 Rivlin, Eliezer 328 Rivlin, Hannah 20, 194, 375, 376, 380, 381 Ron, Emry 63, 64 Ronen, Yitzhak 335, 367, 378 Rosen, Pinhas 110, 112, 165 Rosen, S. 109, 143, 144 Rosen, Y. 118, 119, 141 Rosental, B. 44, 407 Rotazki, Z. 2 Rotem, A. 378, 394, 404 Rubinstein, Amnon 66, 167 Rubinstein, Elyakim 18, 22, 37, 38, 59, 62, 63, 166 Rutenberg, Assaf 318 Rutenberg, Yehuda 318 Sahar, Yehezkel 47, 48 Sapir, P. 7, 114 Sapir, Yosef 114 Sarid, Yossi 37, 38, 66, 277, 278, 283, 284 Schapiro, Miriam 87 Schayek, N. 14, 15, 68, 174, 177, 179, 185, 196, 198, 268, 298, 308, 315, 317, 371 Schind, Z. 47 Schoenberger, Y. 92 Schulkes, Yehiel 115 Scrolls of Fire (Book) 3, 132 Sdeh-Lavan, Doron 186 Second Lebanon War xi, 365, 366 Second Tze’elim Disaster 200, 296 Secular Date (also, General, Civilian) 105-108, 124-126, 131-134, 144, 145, 147, 155, 188-199, 202, 210, 241, 275, 276, 285, 286, 306, 307, 404, 408, 409 Seri, Shalom 9, 16, 155, 159, 160, 339, 342, 366, 367 Shaag, (Rabbi) Avraham Haim 9, 97, 109, 118, 120, 133, 134, 139, 149 Shafat, A.Y. 15

Shahaf, Yitzhak 17, 37, 38, 50, 56-58, 62, 166, 167 Shaki, Avner 282, 283 Shalev, Motti x Shalit, D. 19, 178 Shamgar, Meir 36, 46, 50-52, 175 Shamir, Ilana x, 3, 35, 87 Sharabi, Chaim 318 Sharabi, Gil 318 Shefi, Dov 62, 63, 72, 73, 196 Shemer, B. 183, 335 Shemesh, Y. 182 Shibak, Esther 189-191, 193-196 Shibak, Itay 189 Shitrit, Meir 124, 145, 279 Shitrit, Shimon 198 Shmuelevitz, M. 185, 187, 193, 296 Shvat, Avraham 10, 93, 116, 131, 139, 147, 154 Simhoni, Yehudit 7, 16 Sinai Campaign 37, 150, 151, 211, 246, 251 Sivan, Emmanuel x, 409 Six-Day War 37, 151, 152, 160, 205, 211, 247, 251, 339, 340, 394, 406 Spiegel, Family 179-181, 183, 268, 289 Spiegel, Efrat 178, 179, 183 Spiegel, Yoav 178 Surkis, M. 392 Sweid, Saleh 144 Syrkin, A. 110 Tal, P. 191, 382 Tamari, Nehemiah 315, 323 Tamir, Shmuel 167 Telraz, Yosef 61, 71, 198 Thirty-Five 125, 127-129, 131 Title (Civilian, Degrees) 104, 119, 120, 123, 124, 127, 135, 138, 139, 147, 153-155, 186-188, 259, 302 Traves, Irma 126, 127, 132 Tsoriano, Gil 269 Tsoriano, L. 22, 23, 269 Turkel, Yaakov 175, 328 Tze’elim Disaster 389, 305

Index of names and subjects 

Uniform, Uniformity (Expression, Component, Procedure) viii, ix, 25, 26, 28, 33, 61, 62, 69, 82-87, 89, 90, 92-94, 96, 99, 101, 103, 104, 106, 110-116, 118-120, 122-125, 127-129, 131-133, 136-139, 141-143, 146, 148-155, 157-161, 163-167, 169, 176, 179, 182, 184, 186, 187, 189, 191, 193, 194, 200-203, 207-218, 222, 228, 229, 233, 235-239, 242, 243, 245-251, 253-255, 258, 262, 264, 265, 267, 268, 270, 271, 273, 275-277, 279, 282-285, 289, 290, 297-299, 303, 306, 307, 310-313, 317-322, 326, 328, 330-332, 335, 337, 339-343, 366-371, 374, 376, 378-380, 386, 391-399, 402-405 Uniformity, Equality (Value, Principle) 82, 101, 107, 110, 111, 113, 116, 135, 143, 154, 155, 158, 163, 164, 169, 181, 186-188, 201, 203-205, 207, 208, 210-215, 217-219, 221-223, 227, 229, 230, 234, 241, 247, 258, 259, 265, 271-273, 275, 282-284, 302, 304, 305, 310-313, 321-323, 325-328, 335, 336, 338, 339, 346-348, 350, 370, 372, 380, 381, 384, 350, 370, 372, 380, 381, 384, 385, 389, 391, 396, 398-404, 406, 407, 410, 411 Unit for Commemorating the Soldier 82 Vardi, R. 18, 186, 192, 195 Virshubski, M. 179 Vitkon, Alfred 162 Waldinberg, Eliezer 107 War of Attrition 53, 146, 153, 339, 349, 394 War of Independence 1-5, 7, 9, 12, 36, 37, 63, 82, 83, 89, 91, 107, 110, 115, 116, 118, 121, 123, 130, 135, 141 ,143, 145, 172, 193, 239, 247, 248, 251, 272, 347, 348, 401, 406 Warhaftig, Zerah 65 Wechselbaum, Adi 201, 205, 252, 388 Wechselbaum, Eran 200, 201, 205, 209, 218, 231, 252 Wechselbaum, Family, Chava and Shmuel 167, 200-205, 208-211, 213, 216-221, 223-226, 229, 234, 237, 240, 241, 252, 264, 281

 421

Wechselbaum, Jack 201, 205, 252, 388 Wechselbaum, Limor 201, 205, 252, 388 Weiler, (Rabbi) Moshe Haim 19 Weinreich, D. 1 Weinstein, Ariel 266 Weizman, Ezer 57, 65, 67, 167 Wertheimer, Mordecai 67, 68 Wilkenfeld, H. 111 Wissotsky, A. 95 Wurm, A. 51, 150 Yad Labanim Organization (also, Center) x, 6, 10, 17, 24, 36, 79, 80, 87, 88, 89, 92, 93, 113, 116, 126, 130, 131, 338, 339, 370, 376, 377, 391, 392, 394, 398 Yaffe, A. 158 Yahel, A. 10, 37, 38, 170, 193 Yahil, Haim 153-155, 341, 342 Yarkoni, Amos 196 Yaron, Pinhas x, 8, 16, 17, 24, 146, 157, 166, 175, 176, 178, 182, 185, 188, 191-193, 293, 344, 367, 375-377, 379, 383, 385, 412 Yekutiel, Z. 315, 412 Yishai, Ram 186, 187 Yisraeli, Haim 11, 13, 37, 38, 44, 52, 63, 71, 73-76, 79, 166, 180, 181, 183, 186, 198, 221, 253, 259, 267, 276, 304, 312, 337, 367, 371, 377 Yisraeli, Y. 44 Yom Kippur War 10, 19, 27, 37, 58, 155-158, 160, 163, 168, 205, 206, 239, 263, 295, 335, 339, 366, 368, 372, 394 Zahavi, Dan 318 Zahavi, Shmuel 318 Zamir, Itzhak 307 Zeevi, Rehavam 266, 282 Zeiler, V. 198 Zichroni, A. 196, 309 Zilberstein, B. 130 Zisling, Aharon 111-113, 115, 214, 232, 380 Ziv Av, Y. 7, 109 Zucker, David 263-271, 276, 279, 280, 283, 284 Zussman, Yoel 162 Zys, P. 130

Index of places Afula 2, 25, 42, 82, 84, 97, 104, 141 Arlington 86, 105, 236, 242, 310 Ashdod 42 Ashdot Yaakov 288 Ashkelon 28, 42 Atarot 117 Beaufort 184 Beer Tuviah 28, 30, 36-37, 42, 155-156 Beersheba 42, 82, 141, 299 Beisan (Beit Shean) 28, 31 Beit Jann 40-42, 142 Beit Lid 300, 322 Belgium 82, 85 Binyamina 42 Canada x, 82-83, 102 Degania A 2, 28, 35, 42 Dimona 40, 42, 363 Dir el-Balah 82 Eastern Europe 88, 405 England 50, 232, 246 Europe viii, 43, 50, 82, 84, 88, 93, 215-216, 399 Finland 302 France 82, 84 Galilee 4, 180 Gaza 50, 82, 195 Gesher 380 Gesher A-Ziv 64 Givat Brenner 34 Granada 103 Gush Etzion 127, 155 Hadera 42, 298-299, 340 Haifa 2, 25, 27, 42, 45-47, 64, 82, 87, 92, 96, 141, 143-145, 301, 339-341, 359, 381-383 Haifa Bay 125 Hamutal (Outpost) 158 Har Eitan 371 Herzliya 42

Holon 42, 48, 199, 351-352, 356, 362 Hulda 109 Hurfeish 8, 40-42, 142 Iraq 103 Ismailiya 158 Israel (Land of, State of) ix, x, 1, 5, 29, 32-33, 37, 40, 42, 43, 53, 60-66, 70, 75, 78, 81, 82, 84-85, 87-88, 92-95, 105, 107, 113, 123-125, 130, 135, 137, 141-142, 179, 180-182, 205, 208, 218, 228, 233, 237, 239, 242, 248, 253-254, 258, 262, 271, 275, 285-286, 302, 310, 311, 317, 318, 339, 340, 366, 381, 389, 394-395, 397-398, 400 Italy 87 Jerusalem 2, 6, 25, 39, 42, 46, 82, 86, 88-89, 91-94, 106-107, 109, 149, 262, 388-398, 406 Jezreel Valley 25 Jordan Valley 25 Judea and Samaria 302 Kfar Darom 300 Kfar Etzion 98 Kfar Malal 124 Kfar Saba 24, 40, 42, 146, 344 Kfar Warburg 2, 25, 30, 36, 42 Kinneret 93 Kiryat Anavim 2, 28, 35, 42, 94, 348 Kiryat Gat 42 Kiryat Shaul 2, 28, 42, 46, 56-57, 141, 159, 164, 171, 178, 247, 252, 314, 340, 347, 349, 352, 353-354, 357-362, 364, 369, 384, 396 Kiryat Shmona 40, 42 Korea 103 Latrun 155 Lebanon xi, 103, 177-181, 183-184, 295-296, 298-302, 312, 314, 316-317, 319, 322-325, 366, 388-389, 407, 409-410 Lod 42, 109

Index of places 

Majdal 28 Manara 185 Migdal Haemek 42 Montreal x, 83, 415 Mount Herzl 25, 30, 46, 48, 95-100, 108, 129, 149, 263, 287, 345-347, 350-351, 353, 358, 361, 363, 365, 395-396 Mount Kastel 94 Mount of Olives 42, 62, 93 Mount Royal 83 Mount Scopus 82, 88, 105, 226, 262 Nabi Yusha 4 Nahariya 2, 25, 42 Nahlat Yitzhak 2, 25, 42-43, 64, 92, 138, 159, 345 Negba 2, 35-36, 42 Negev 94-95 Nes Ziona 42 Netanya 2, 25, 42, 340, 389 New Zealand 402 North America 104, 399 Ofakim 40, 42 Panama 103 Pardes Hanna 42 Petah Tikvah 36, 40, 42, 95, 98 Raanana 42 Ramat Rachel 124, 134-135, 140 Ramla 42, 82, 89, 102, 109 Ramot Hashavim 189 Ramot Naftali 5 Rehovot 2, 28, 35, 42 Revivim 42

 423

Rishon Lezion 42, 60, 373 Rosh Pina 2, 25-26, 42, 97-99, 348, 395 Ruhama 3, 4 Safed 2, 28, 35, 42, 278 Sharon Region 25 Shear Yashuv 314, 317, 323-325, 410 Sheikh Badr 91 Shfaram 92 Sinai 158, 168, 239, 244, 295, 302 Somalia 103 Southern Region 25 Sweden 93, 95 Taiba (Israel) 109 Taibe (Lebanon) 299 Tel Aviv x, 2, 6, 25, 42, 64, 82, 84-85, 96, 104, 106, 299, 302, 371 Tiberias 42, 354, 355 Tira 109 Tze’elim 200, 289, 295, 305 United States viii, x, 82, 102, 228, 235, 254, 261, 262, 310 Upper Eastern Galilee 25 Upper Galilee 109, 314 Upper Nazareth 42 Upper Western Galilee 25 Usafiya 2, 35, 39-42, 142, 144 Vietnam 103 Yagur 34 Yokneam 387 Zarzir 144