By Mohammad Hammoud
In the midst of a prolonged and grueling conflict, a deepening crisis within the “Israeli” occupation army has come to light. A striking number of “Israeli” soldiers—both reservists and conscripts—have publicly declared their refusal to serve, as reported in a recent Haaretz article. These soldiers have asserted that unless significant changes occur, particularly progress on a captives’ deal with Hamas, they will not return to their units. This unprecedented movement stems from a combination of physical and mental exhaustion, disillusionment with what they perceive as a far-right shift within the army, and profound anger over the perceived abandonment of captives by the "Israeli" government.
Many have been engaged in continuous operations, facing the harsh realities of war without adequate respite.
The physical demands of military service, coupled with the psychological strain of combat, have left them feeling drained and demoralized.
The constant state of alert and the traumatic experiences on the battlefield have contributed to a pervasive sense of burnout among the troops.
For instance, Max Kresch, one of the 130 signatories of an open letter to Benjamin Netanyahu, embodies this frustration.
After serving as a reservist on the Lebanese border for over two months, Kresch declared that he would not return unless a deal is reached for the release of 101 captives still held in Gaza.
His public refusal is far from isolated; it reflects a broader movement within the army.
The 130 soldiers, most of whom are reservists, have announced their unwillingness to serve under the current circumstances, highlighting a significant morale crisis.
Perception of a Far-Right Shift In addition to their exhaustion, many soldiers are increasingly concerned about the ideological direction of the “Israeli” army.
These reservists and conscripts express alarm at what they view as a far-right shift sweeping through the ranks.
They argue that this ideological transformation is altering the army's character and influencing its operational decisions and priorities in ways they find troubling.
The frustrations of these soldiers extend beyond military matters.
Many, including Kresch, are deeply opposed to recent governmental “judicial reforms”, perceiving them as detrimental to “Israel’s” so-called “democratic” foundations.
They argue that the ongoing conflict is being utilized as a “smoke screen” to divert attention from these political changes.
The entity they enlisted to protect increasingly feels misaligned with the values and principles they swore to defend.
This sentiment is particularly evident in the stance taken by reservists like 28-year-old Yotam Vilk, who fought in Gaza and now serves as a deputy company commander in the Armored Corps.
Despite his profound sense of duty, Vilk has reached a critical juncture where he questions the very nature of his service, especially in light of the government’s perceived unwillingness to prioritize the release of hostages.
Conditional Loyalty For many of these soldiers, their commitment to the “Israeli” army has become conditional.
While they are not deserting in the traditional sense, their continued service hinges on significant policy changes.
For some, like Assaf, a soldier in the 16th Infantry Brigade, the decision to stop serving has already been made.
He cites the futility of what seems to be an endless and illogical war.
As this movement grows, the question of loyalty to the “Israeli” army—and by extension, to the “Israeli” entity—becomes increasingly pressing.
While these soldiers’ refusals are rooted in deep moral and political concerns, their actions challenge the foundational premise of military service in “Israel”: the expectation that every soldier must be willing to sacrifice for the greater good of the “Israel”.
Conclusion The open letter sent to Netanyahu underscores the deepening divide within “Israeli” society and the army.
As these 130 soldiers take a stand, they signal the potential for broader dissent within the military, a cornerstone of “Israeli” security and identity.
Their refusal to serve is not merely a personal protest but a reflection of an entity grappling with its direction amidst war, political upheaval, and shifting values.
The refusal of these soldiers to serve marks a significant moment in “Israeli” history—one that could reshape both its military and societal landscape.
The refusal of these soldiers to serve may very well become a pivotal chapter in understanding “Israel's” evolving identity and the future of its military commitment