One gets the impression that some of Israel's population has been reading too much Heinlein and taking it as serious political theory.

This Israeli does not grok your comment.

but yeah, this isn't good. at least we can take solace in the fact that lieberman is gone for the time being and that hopefully shas will follow suit too.

Why should Israelis who don't do national service get to vote themselves privileges that other Israelis don't enjoy?  Let the Arabs and Charedim spend time tending wounds in a hospital or helping the elderly before they get a say in the government.

Eitan Cabel is obviously worried about the Labor Party's credibility with right-wing voters. It should come as no surprise that he issued such a statement on the eve of the release of the Winograd report, and the present government's attempt to reinvigorate the s-called peace process. Labor wants to be elected to lead the next government, and as usual, will most likely fail to do so relying on unimaginative and morally objectionable strategies like these. Yet, its leadership continues to believe that by sounding more right-wing than Likud, it will still prevail. 
I don't believe that such a law should be enacted. It contravenes what ought to be a basic right for all Israelis, by threatening that the most fundamental aspect of Israeli political life will be suspended for those who don't do their army service. Don't serve in the military, and you will not be granted civil rights. This is the message that Cabel is really conveying. Though he wants Labor to appear credible to the right, he also appears willing to sacrifice general civil rights in exchange for political power as well. That's extremely frightening.

This is why Cabel's words ought to be taken seriously. This proposed law ought to be an eye-opener for anyone interested in assessing the state of Israeli society. If senior politicians like Cabel can so easily problematize the fundamental rights of Israeli citizens, it means that the political echelon's respect for those rights is eroding. 
Not just how they might be selectively applied towards Arab Israelis,  guest workers, or immigrants whose Jewish identity is supposedly in question, but Jewish Israelis as well, for whom no such questions are ever asked. When you take away their rights as well, you end up confirming the worst possible suspicions of Israel's critics, that Israel is not a democracy. Why give them more ammunition? Aren't the occupation, and the present flaws in our system enough?

I think that if the state has the right to demand that young citizens serve in the military, then it has the right to ask every citizen to do some kind of service.

What kind of service is appropriate is a different question. Maybe civil service is the solution, and maybe it's not, but the basic idea doesn't seem preposterous (at least to me).

To me, the biggest problem is that politicians have a way of corrupting even good ideas with crooked interpretation and terrible implementation. Take for example "the wall", which is a terribly ugly landscape feature, but could have been an acceptable defensive measure had it been built on the frontier. The concept, which is not bad by itself, has been corrupted by military idiots and evil politicians into a monstrosity, causing terrible suffering, without achieving its goal.

So – While I can support the concept of a defensive wall (ignoring the fact that it does not promote peace between neighbors – we have some more pressing problems right now), I strongly oppose it in its current form.

The same applies to the proposed law: I think that the law, in the form presented by Cabel, is a half baked piece of crap, but maybe it can serve as a trigger for a public debate about balancing rights against obligations. At present, democracy seems to mean rights without obligations. Maybe it should not be so one sided.

I do not support such a law, because it is, in its core, a law that descriminates people more than it balances the national/public safety and order. This is not about the individual Vs. the public, this is about understanding that some people simply cannot make a routine military service at the exact terms and exact years the law wants them to stand on guard. Some people have different beliefs, different views. Some are simply in a hard mental state during these specific years - we are in a society in which many teenagers mature more slowly and it takes them more time/years to understand the importance of a military service - Denying them BASIC and Fully legitimate rights such as a driving license, studies in a free occupation etc, is a Brutal act of racism. Just because someone at the age of 18 couldn't see the value of army service, doesn't mean you can Judge him/her for LIFE. This is execution without trial.I would suggest instead that they (country/military) do something like is accustamed in France, for example: When you are ~17 years old or so, you get summoned to a MANDATORY day in the army, where they explain to you the benefits and importance of serving your country. After this day (which you MUST attend, by law), you can choose your path. But this really gives the nation and the army responsibility on DELIVERING the right message for the youth about WHY TO SERVE YOUR COUNTRY, rather then punishing you in advance. And isn't this (DELIVERING the right message for the youth about WHY TO SERVE YOUR COUNTRY) the REAL reason why this law/punishment is about?

I support a law that says that every Israeli citizen has to "service" thecountry. If for any reason he or she does not go to the service through the IDF than the civil service is a good alternative. In my opinion, a mandatory service to everyone will create a more equal society structure in Israel.Regarding the punishment:  I think that taking away a person right to vote actually makes sense.  If they refuse to serve the country, why should they get a vote in how it is governed.  You want the right, fulfill the obligation.  The other parts of the punishment seem foolish to me.       

It's really too bad that we don't have something like this in the USA. When you create a culture of individualism and the "what's in it for me?" mentality, it's hard to maintain any sense of people being 'in it together.'

Collective sacrifice brings people together, and drives home the idea that everyone has a stake in the whole. Draconian punishments aside, do you think people would be so politically naive and apathetic in the US if they actually were required to serve the country in some shape or form?

Expanding the idea of national service to include more than just military service is a step in the right direction.

If an Israeli citizen does not want to do military service for religious or other reasons AND does not want to contribute in one of the other ways that were suggested by the author, then how about a slightly increased tax for those individuals? Maybe even a one-time fee, which they can pay off gradually or all at once. This way those people would retain their rights as citizens, but still contribute to the military financially.

I know, I know...the rich will buy their way out of the army. But not if it's handled properly. Military service will still be mandatory. You only avoid it with a legitimate reason. But then it's, "show me the money."

..."Regarding the punishment:  I think that taking away a person right to vote actually makes sense.  If they refuse to serve the country, why should they get a vote in how it is governed"...

I definitely do not agree with this comment. To "serve" your country should not be an obligation, should be always a choice.( national service or military service)

1/ We are all differents individuals and not necessary want to be molded by the military service.

2/ If  education in schools cultivate the love and respect to the country, motivating childrens to be actives citizens in the future, none law of this kind would be necessary.

Roi, I agree with your points. I have 3 to add: First, there should be incentives rather than punishments motivating citizens to protect and help the country. I'm not a Behaviorist, but psychology has taught us that punishments are ineffective for motivating behaviour over the long-term, not to mention the fact that breeding resentment towards an army your are serving in can't be good for morale. Second, related to my first point, the image of Israel threatening citizens into military service that may require serving in an occupied territory is NOT an image that will benefit Israel in any way. As opposed to being seen as breeding constructive citizens, it will be seen as threatening citizens into carrying out tasks that much of the world views as criminal. This will also feed the zealous minds of those that enjoy drawing parallels between Israel and NAZI Germany. Third, options should be available for using the human capital that each citizen is trained to provide. If a psychologist, give them the option of helping veterans, current soldiers or soldiers' families, for example. This can provide them experience useful in their careers outside or after the military service, thus making use of the benefits of both their talents and the experience they gain. Threatening to prohibit professionals from practicing their profession will only encourage some of the best and brightest of Israel to leave and never come back.