logo
Protest letters from former Israeli soldiers lay bare profound rifts over the ongoing war

Protest letters from former Israeli soldiers lay bare profound rifts over the ongoing war

The Hill18-04-2025

TEL AVIV, Israel (AP) — When nearly 1,000 Israeli Air Force veterans signed an open letter last week calling for an end to the war in Gaza, the military responded immediately, saying it would dismiss any active reservist who signed the document.
But in the days since, thousands of retired and reservist soldiers across the military have signed similar letters of support.
The growing campaign, which accuses the government of perpetuating the war for political reasons and failing to bring home the remaining hostages, has laid bare the deep division and disillusionment over Israel's fighting in Gaza.
By spilling over into the military, it has threatened national unity and raised questions about the army's ability to continue fighting at full force. It also resembles the bitter divisions that erupted in early 2023 over the government's attempts to overhaul Israel's legal system, which many say weakened the country and encouraged Hamas' attack later that year that triggered the war.
'It's crystal clear that the renewal of the war is for political reasons and not for security reasons,' Guy Poran, a retired pilot who was one of the initiators of the air force letter, told The Associated Press.
A return to war
The catalyst for the letters was Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's decision on March 18 to return to war instead of sticking to a ceasefire that had facilitated the release of some hostages.
Netanyahu says the military pressure is needed to force Hamas to release the remaining hostages. Critics, including many families of the hostages, fear that it will get them killed.
One month after Netanyahu resumed the war, none of the 59 hostages held by Hamas have been freed or rescued, of whom 24 are believed to still be alive.
In their letters, the protesters have stopped short of refusing to serve. And the vast majority of the 10,000 soldiers who have signed are retired in any case.
Nonetheless, Poran said their decision to identify themselves as ex-pilots was deliberate — given the respect among Israel's Jewish majority for the military, and especially for fighter pilots and other prestigious units. Tens of thousands of academics, doctors, former ambassadors, students and high-tech workers have signed similar letters of solidarity in recent days, also demanding an end to the war.
'We are aware of the relative importance and the weight of the brand of Israeli Air Force pilots and felt that it is exactly the kind of case where we should use this title in order to influence society,' said Poran.
Elusive war goals
The war erupted on Oct. 7, 2023, when Hamas carried out a surprise cross-border attack, killing about 1,200 people in southern Israel and taking 251 others hostage.
Throughout the war, Netanyahu has set two major goals: destroying Hamas and bringing home the hostages.
Israel's offensive has reduced much of Gaza to rubble and killed more than 51,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza health officials, who don't differentiate between civilians and combatants.
While Israel has come under heavy international criticism over the devastation in Gaza, the domestic opposition to the conflict reflects a widespread belief that Netanyahu's war goals are not realistic.
Nearly 70% of Israelis now say bringing home the hostages is the most important goal of the war, up from just over 50% in January 2024, according to a study conducted by the Jerusalem think tank Israel Democracy Institute. Nearly 60% of respondents said Netanyahu's two goals cannot be realized together.
The survey interviewed nearly 750 people and had a margin of error of 3.6 percentage points.
Netanyahu's opponents have also accused him of resuming the war to pander to his hardline coalition partners, who have threatened to topple the government if he ends the fighting.
Steering clear of politics
Many people were surprised by the military's snap decision to dismiss air force reservists who signed the protest letter.
The army, which is mandatory for most Jewish men, has long served as a melting pot and unifying force among Israel's Jewish majority. Many key units rely heavily on reservists, who often to serve well into their 40s.
In a statement, the military said it should be 'above all political dispute.'
As the protest movement has grown, a military official said the army is taking the letters 'very seriously.'
He said it joins a list of challenges to calling up reservists and that the army is working to support them. A growing number of reservists have stopped reporting for duty, citing exhaustion, family reasons, and the financial burden of missing work.
'Any civilian can have his opinions. The problems come when people use the army as a tool promoting their opinions, whatever they may be,' the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity under military guidelines.
The army's dilemma
Eran Duvdevani, who organized a letter signed by 2,500 former paratroopers, told the AP that the army faces a dilemma.
'If it will keep on releasing from service the pilots, what about all the others who signed the letters? Will they be discharged from service as well?' he said.
He said he organized the letter to show 'the pilots are not alone.' Their concern over the war's direction 'is a widespread opinion, and you have to take it into consideration.'
Although only a few hundred of the signatories are still actively serving, the Israeli military has been stretched by 18 months of fighting and isn't in any position to be turning away anyone from reserve duty. Many Israelis are also furious that as reservists repeatedly get called up for action, the government continues to grant military exemptions to Netanyahu's ultra-Orthodox governing partners.
The number of Israelis continuing to report for reserve duty has dropped so low that the military has taken to social media to try to recruit people to keep serving.
Protest letters illuminate widespread divisions
Eran Halperin, an expert in social psychology at Jerusalem's Hebrew University, called the letters 'the most important indication of the erosion of the ethos in this particular war.'
Though the war enjoyed widespread support at the outset, doubts have grown as so many hostages continue to languish in captivity and the Israeli death toll mounts. Nearly 850 soldiers have been killed since the war started.
'It's very, very difficult to maintain and manage a war in such violent conflict when there are such deep disagreements about the main questions pertaining to the war,' Halperin said.
In recent days, Netanyahu's office has published a flurry of messages touting meetings with families of the hostages, stressing he is doing everything he can to hasten their return.
On Tuesday, he and his defense minister toured northern Gaza, where Netanyahu praised the 'amazing reservists' doing 'marvelous work.'
Netanyahu's office released videos of him marching through the sandy dunes surrounded by dozens of soldiers.
'We are fighting for our existence,' he said. 'We are fighting for our future.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

I know why the UN Security Council is irrelevant to Gaza. I was there when the US stood up for Israel
I know why the UN Security Council is irrelevant to Gaza. I was there when the US stood up for Israel

Fox News

timean hour ago

  • Fox News

I know why the UN Security Council is irrelevant to Gaza. I was there when the US stood up for Israel

On October 7, 2023, like many around the world, I awoke to news of the horrific attacks perpetrated by Hamas against more than 1,200 innocent Israeli, American and other civilians who that day were doing nothing other than going about their lives. The television newscasts were bone-chilling – pictures of mutilated babies; of fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers slain in front of family members; of peace activists murdered in cold blood; and of the taking of 250 hostages, some of whom more than 20 months on are still being held. Later that day, the United States called for an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council to address this mass terror attack, the largest murder of Jews since the Holocaust. As the American ambassador to the UN responsible for Security Council matters, I represented the United States at the October 8 emergency meeting and demanded the council issue a statement expressly condemning Hamas for the ruthless terrorist attacks. Unfortunately, Russia, China and a few other council members refused to endorse such a statement. To put it simply, their refusal to call a spade a spade was abhorrent and incomprehensible. Note: To this day, the Security Council has yet to formally declare Hamas a terrorist group. Going into the October 8 emergency Security Council meeting, there had rightfully been much global sympathy for Israel – and certainly an expectation that Israel would have to respond militarily. However, once Israel took measures to defend itself, a right enshrined in Article 51 of the UN Charter, many nations, most notably from the Global South, condemned Israel's response as disproportionate and used it as a rallying cry to further isolate Israel in the multilateral system and beyond. To me and many of my U.S. government colleagues, this was not unexpected. Since joining the UN in 1948, there has been an unfortunate decline in support for Israel at the world body, a decline that began to accelerate following the period of decolonization in the 1960s. Many former colonies wrongly began to view the Israel-Palestinian conflict through the prism of their own struggles against European colonizers, with Israel viewed as a colonizer and the Palestinians as being colonized. Israel's relationship with the UN reached a nadir in 1975, when the UN General Assembly passed a highly politicized resolution equating Zionism with racism, a document that was finally revoked by the UNGA in 1991. Regrettably, efforts by the Palestinians and their supporters to isolate Israel at the UN have not abated and in fact have intensified since October 7, 2023. During my two-plus years in New York as ambassador, I engaged in a great deal of difficult diplomacy on the situation in Gaza and cast the sole veto of two UNSC draft resolutions related to the war, both of which lacked a clear condemnation of Hamas, a direct linkage of a ceasefire to the release of hostages, and a reference to Israel's Article 51 rights. Had these texts been adopted by the council, they would not have delivered an immediate ceasefire or a release of the hostages – but certainly would have given Hamas the time and space to rearm. Other council representatives privately agreed but nevertheless felt increasing pressure from their capitals to produce a council document calling for an immediate ceasefire. From the beginning of the conflict through the end of the Biden administration, the U.S. regularly proffered creative alternatives on ceasefire language, while most other council members insisted on an explicit reference to an immediate ceasefire. On rare occasions, the council was able to find common ground on Gaza wording when it focused on upholding the principles of humanitarian assistance and protection of civilians. But when some members opted to abandon council unity and force votes on resolutions containing unacceptable ceasefire language, the U.S. was left with no choice but to exercise its veto. Before each veto was cast, we recognized the potential collateral damage to America's international reputation; however, in our view the adoption of an unbalanced council resolution would have made a ceasefire neither practicable nor implementable given the highly charged and extremely complex situation on the ground. In the United States' view, the establishment of a limited and credible negotiation channel was essential for achieving an effective, durable and sustainable end to the war. While the Biden administration didn't achieve an end to the war on its watch, it did negotiate a three-phase diplomatic framework to pause the fighting and release the hostages, which was ultimately blessed by the council and backed by the Trump administration. To this day, one key factor hampering council unity on Gaza is Moscow and Beijing's exploitation of the situation there for a clear geopolitical end: deflect international attention away from Russia's savage war against Ukraine. In response to Russian statements in the Council on Gaza, which habitually condemned the U.S. for allegedly facilitating Israeli actions, I constantly reminded council members that Russia was in no position to criticize any country given the horrific war of aggression it was conducting in Ukraine. I also publicly warned Chinese diplomats that should they continue making false accusations about the U.S. concerning Gaza, I would immediately call out their country's support to Russia's military industrial base, refuting Beijing's fictitious claim that it supports neither party to the conflict. Russia and China must end their politicization of Gaza and either contribute constructively to peace efforts or simply get out of the way. While I had expected Russia and China to take adversarial positions, I was extremely disappointed that three U.S. partners on the council, Slovenia, Algeria and Guyana, chose to regularly piggyback on Russian and Chinese political shenanigans to push for more urgent council action on the issue. Their aim was to shame the U.S. and compel it to change course from its steadfast support of Israel in the war with Hamas. All the while, the three had been keenly aware that Washington was conducting sensitive negotiations behind the scenes with Israel, Qatar and Egypt on steps to facilitate a durable end to the fighting and ease civilian suffering in Gaza. But instead of getting fully behind those steps and working with us in good faith, they preferred to ratchet up public pressure on the U.S. and ignore American concerns about how their actions would be manipulated by Hamas and other malign actors in the region – Iran, Hezbollah and the Houthis – to the detriment of regional peace and security. Given persistent council divisions over the war in Gaza, some UN member states continue to lay the diplomatic predicate for a future General Assembly resolution (non-legally binding) calling for sanctions, an arms embargo and other tough international measures against Israel. The recent U.S. veto of another council resolution on Gaza will certainly provide fuel for those efforts. As I write, the Palestinians and their allies continue to ponder additional pathways to go after Israel throughout the UN system. There is even discussion in some UN circles about suspending Israel's voting rights in the General Assembly, an act that would deeply anger Washington and trigger severe political consequences for the UN. Since this tragic conflict began, I have been mystified as to why many UN officials believe that all the U.S. has to do is instruct Israel to end its pursuit of Hamas and then somehow a magical end to the fighting would materialize. On their part, I sense a genuine reluctance to treat Israel as a legitimate state with its own national security concerns. While the United States does indeed have influence with Israel, it is naïve at best for these colleagues to think America can simply dictate to Jerusalem what it should and shouldn't do in response to what it perceives as existential threats. Russia and China must end their politicization of Gaza and either contribute constructively to peace efforts or simply get out of the way. Misguided pressure on the U.S., relentless efforts to isolate Israel, Russian and Chinese diversionary tactics, blatant antisemitism, and a reluctance by some states to compromise continue to stymie the Security Council's ability to speak with one voice on ending the Gaza war. Until these unfortunate practices cease, the council will remain irrelevant to a resolution to Gaza and the broader Israel-Palestinian conflict. While no one can ignore the terrible tragedy that is now Gaza, it remains a fact that those UN member states that have influence with Hamas have made a strategic decision not to use it. The hesitancy of many countries over the years to publicly condemn Hamas as a terrorist group has only given it the oxygen it needs to carry on, no matter how much death and suffering Palestinians in Gaza continue to experience. To end this war, Hamas must disarm and disband. There will not be peace in Gaza until it does. Gazans deserve an opportunity to live in peace and to seek a prosperous future. Hamas' continued rule will bring them neither.

Israel vows Iran will 'pay the price' as attacks continue for a fourth day
Israel vows Iran will 'pay the price' as attacks continue for a fourth day

CNBC

timean hour ago

  • CNBC

Israel vows Iran will 'pay the price' as attacks continue for a fourth day

Tehran will "pay the price" for its fresh missile onslaught against Israel, the Jewish state's defense minister warned Monday, as markets braced for a fourth day of ramped-up conflict between the regional powers. Fire exchanges have continued since Israel's Friday attack against Iran, with Iranian media reporting Tehran's latest strikes hit Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and Haifa, home to a major refinery. CNBC has reached out to operator Bazan for comment on the state of operations at the Haifa plant, amid reports of damage to Israel's energy infrastructure. Iran's Revolutionary Guard said overnight it deployed "innovative methods" that "disrupted the enemy's multi-layered defense systems, to the point that the Zionist air defense systems engaged in targeting each other," according to a statement obtained by NBC News. Israel has widely depended on its highly efficient Iron Dome missile defense system to fend off attacks throughout regional conflicts — but even it can be overwhelmed if a large number of projectiles are fired. The fresh hostilities are front-of-mind for investors, who have been weighing the odds of further escalation in the conflict and spillover into the broader oil-rich Middle East, amid concerns over crude supplies and the key shipping lane through the Strait of Hormuz connecting the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. Oil prices retained the gains of recent days and at 09:19 a.m. London time, Ice Brent futures with August delivery were trading at $73.81 per barrel, down 0.57% from the previous trading session. The Nymex WTI contract with July expiry was at $72.7 per barrel, 0.38% lower. Elsewhere, however, markets showed initial signs of shrugging off the latest hostilities early on Monday. Spot prices for key safe-haven asset gold retreated early morning, down 0.42% to $3,417.83 per ounce after nearly notching a two-year-high earlier in the session, with U.S. gold futures also down 0.65% to $ 3,430.5 Tel Aviv share indices pointed higher, with the blue-chip TA-35 up 0.99% and the wider TA-125 up 1.33%. European stock markets opened higher Monday, meanwhile, and U.S. stock futures were also in the green. Luis Costa, global head of EM sovereign credit at Citigroup Global Markets, signaled the muted reaction could be, in part, attributed to hopes of a brisk resolution to the conflict. "So markets are obviously, you know, bearing in mind all potential scenarios. There are obviously potentially very bad scenarios in this story," he told CNBC's "Europe Early Edition" on Monday. "But there is still a way out in terms of, you know, a faster resolution and bringing Iran to the table, or a short continuation here, of a very surgical and intense strike by the Israeli army." As of Monday morning, Israel's national emergency service Magen David Adom reported four dead and 87 injured following rocket strikes at four sites in "central Israel," reporting collapsed buildings, fire and people trapped under debris. Accusing Tehran of targeting civilians in Israel to prevent the Israel Defense Forces from "continuing the attack that is collapsing its capabilities," Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz, a close longtime ally of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, said in a Google-translated social media update that "the residents of Tehran will pay the price, and soon." The IDF on Sunday said it had in turn "completed a wide-scale wave of strikes on numerous weapon production sites belonging to the Quds Force, the IRGC and the Iranian military, in Tehran." CNBC could not independently verify developments on the ground. The U.S.' response is now in focus, given its close support and arms provision to Israel, the unexpected cancellation of Washington's latest nuclear deal talks with Iran, and President Donald Trump's historically hard-hitting stance against Tehran during his first term. Trump, who has been pushing Iran for a deal over its nuclear program, has weighed in on the conflict, opposing an Israeli proposal to kill Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, according to NBC News. Discussions about the conflict are expected to take place during the ongoing meeting of the G7, encapsulating Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the U.K. and the U.S., along with the European Union. —

Why Israel Attacked Iran, and What to Watch for Next
Why Israel Attacked Iran, and What to Watch for Next

Bloomberg

time2 hours ago

  • Bloomberg

Why Israel Attacked Iran, and What to Watch for Next

Save The conflict between Israel and Iran has shaped the Middle East for decades. It was largely on a low boil as the two sides attacked each other — mostly quietly and in Iran's case often by proxy — while avoiding a full-blown war. The hostilities stepped up a gear following the outbreak of war between Israel and the Palestinian group Hamas, which is backed by Iran, in October 2023. Israel and Iran fired missiles and drones on each other twice last year.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store