The Judge Strasberg-CohenShe, too, thought so:
"It seems that the opening of the pilot course for women In a controlled and limited way of an adequate number of squadrons, While examining the consequences that this applies to the needs of the corps [...], will significantly reduce the risk of injury and damage, if it is not abolished altogether. Instead of blocking women's access to a pilot course, - In the first stage - Take less drastic steps [...] and follow the path of trial and error (trial and error)" (pp. 124-125; emphases added - v. S.)
If so, not only did the court not express displeasure with the gradual progress in this way - He certainly did not argue that this was extremely unreasonable - However, it is clear that he found in it an appropriate balance between the various considerations on the agenda, and even many benefits. Indeed, also from a consequential point of view, the model of experience - which was later also applied to the Captains' Course - He led the successful integration of women into a pilot course and a sailors' course.
- This is not only true on the positive level; their logic is on their side. Thus, although I am attentive to the Petitioners' argument that the process of change on the way to the integration of women in combat roles is proceeding at an unsatisfactory pace, I am of the opinion that the achievement of the goal in question, in a moderate and balanced process, does not thwart the necessary change; On the contrary, it seems to me that the opposite is true. Large changes, even those whose importance and necessity are indisputable, are often better made carefully, one to the other. It is precisely those who are interested in the success and persistence of such changes that have a good reason to support conduct in this spirit, which is based on two main reasons.
- The first reason, and the most important of these, is of a practical nature, and its concern with uncertainty necessarilyaccompanies any process of change - both with regard to how it should be realized, and with regard to its potential consequences. Gradual and continuous change allows its leaders, and the company as a whole, to examine the results of the change over time, correct deviations, and 'recalculate the course' when necessary. On the other hand, a rapid and comprehensive 'revolution' at once, in the name of the desire to quickly reach the desired goal, may also bring negative and unexpected consequences, such as 'throwing the baby out with the water', without the possibility of 'isolating' the various factors and making the necessary adjustments. In this regard, the words of the philosopher Karl Popper, who noted the advantages inherent in the scientific method also for the purpose of social change: "In all matters we can learn only by trial and error, by making mistakes and by improving [...] It can be assumed that because of the lack of experience, many mistakes will be made that can only be undone through a long and tedious process of small adjustments" (Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies 170 (Aharon Amir, 2003)). Popper emphasizes that "I do not object to the ideal by claiming that it is never possible to realize an ideal [...] The thing that I criticize [...Concerning the implementation] of very extreme changes, owing to our limited experience, it is difficult for us to calculate their practical results" (ibid., p. 164).
- The second reason for which I believe that sometimes measured and careful changes must be made lies in the effect of the nature of the change process on the chances of its acceptance and its persistence over time. A sharp shift of the pendulum to one side may unintentionally lead to the opposite and destructive results, while pushing the pendulum back to the other side, with the same speed and intensity - whether due to negative side effects as mentioned, or as a result ofthe difficulties of adaptation that sometimes accompany social change, and which may constitute resistance to the change as a whole. This is even more true when we are dealing with issues that are in public discourse and controversy, and in view of the complex nature of Israeli society (for matters in this vein, see, for example: High Court of Justice 6427/02 The Movement for Quality Government in Israel v. the Knesset, paragraph 4 of the opinion of Justice Procaccia [Nevo] (May 11, 2006)Ruth Gavison, "The Empty Hope: Can the Courts Bring about Social Change?" Acts 2 15 (2009)).
- Returning to our case: this was not said by way of a determination that it would necessarily have been better - or will be better - to act in the matter at hand ; in any case, such a decision is deeply at the core of the Chief of Staff's professional judgment, especially where it is concerned with considerations of feasibility, allocation of resources, operational competence, command attention, and an assessment of the chances of success of one model or another. My intention is only to draw attention to the fact that it is certainly possible to identify in the Chief of Staff's decision on progress by way of experiments practical logic, which is not a sophisticated attempt to 'drag feet' and postpone the move. On the contrary, there are also real benefits. This is all the more beautiful, given the range of considerations at hand, their complexity, and the delicate balance that must be maintained between them.
- Thus far, reference has been made to the arguments of counsel for the Petitioners regarding the model of experience. At the same time, I will add that this model, to the extent that it continues and is properly implemented, will also make it possible to continue to formulate a factual basis with regard to two main issues that arose in the framework of the petitions at hand. The first relates to an argument raised on behalf of the state's respondents several times, especially in the early stages of the petitions, according to which the number of women interested in serving in combat roles in which the petitions focused, and even more so those who are capable of doing so, is extremely low. As noted in the Miller case, and this is true for Danan, "the main and most striking weakness of this argument is that it relies entirely on hypothetical assumptions and assessments and not on lessons learned from cumulative practical experience" (ibid., p. 115).
- Thus, even if I were to ignore the data on the reports for the designated reconnaissance days for women that have been held so far - which are not negligible at all - and the fact that women have made it through those patrol days at a not negligible rate, as well as the success of the experience in the Yahalam unit, and the active and extensive participation of women in the war - it is clear that a true picture of the situation can be obtained only after a few years of practical experience. This is in view of the fact that the motivation rate can be appropriately assessed only on the condition that women preparing for their military service are aware that this option is open to them; and that in most cases, men also prepare and train for a long time - sometimes years - for selection for combat roles, so that the success rate among women can only be tested after they have been given such an opportunity. Nor can it be ignored that this is a change with socio-cultural aspects, and that the nature of such changes is that they require time to "permeate"; The significance of this in our case is that it may take some time for the 'reasonable candidate' for security service to see enlistment in combat roles that are the subject of the petitions as a real possibility.
- The second issue relates to the provision of section 16a(b) of the Defense Service Law, according to which "the right of a female veteran to perform any position shall not be considered infringement, if this is required by the nature and nature of the position." It seems that as a rule, and without denying the possibility of exceptions, it is difficult to fit the position according to which the essence and nature of a particular position requires that women will not be able to serve in it, without it being tried in practice, or that it can be deduced from a similar relevant experience. It is the experience that will therefore assist in complying with the provision of section 16a(b). Another position, which blocks a priori woman based on assumptions about their abilities, is exactly what Justice Dorner warned against in the Miller case: "Closing a profession or position to a person because of his sex [...], conveys a message that the group to which he belongs is inferior, and thus the [...] Low image. Thus, a vicious circle is formed that perpetuates discrimination. The low image, which is based on biological or racial difference, causes discrimination, and the discrimination confirms the degrading stereotypes regarding the inferiority of the discriminated oppressed" (see also, and compare: The Women's Caucus case, paragraph 42).
From all of the above, it emerges that the decision does not actually Promoting the integration of women in combat units through experiences In order to establish grounds for our intervention.