Five Israeli soldiers kill themselves in two weeks
Suicides within the IDF ranks have surged since West Jerusalem deployed troops to Gaza following the deadly Hamas attack on October 7, 2023. Seven soldiers died by suicide by the end of 2023, followed by 21 cases confirmed in 2024, and at least 20 incidents since the start of this year.
The most recent case, confirmed on Sunday, involved a 19-year-old Norwegian immigrant who immigrated to Israel to join the IDF less than a year ago and was still undergoing training. Four others ended their lives in the past two weeks, including a Golani Brigade serviceman who shot himself at the Sde Teiman base, and reservist Daniel Edri, who self-immolated after being diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder.
Most cases involve active-duty reservists, with military officials attributing the rise to combat-related trauma rather than personal or family circumstances.
'One cannot breathe in the face of this statistic,' opposition leader Yair Lapid said. 'This war also kills souls.'
The IDF has also confirmed that thousands of reservists have withdrawn from combat roles due to psychological stress. The true number of suicides due to service-related mental health issues may be higher, with Haaretz reporting at least 12 non-combat veterans, whose deaths were not included in the army's official statistics in recent years.
Now in its 21st month, the Gaza conflict has placed intense strain on Israeli forces, with prolonged deployments and mounting losses. Since the start of the operation, 893 Israeli soldiers have been killed, according to official data, in addition to nearly 1,200 Israeli civilians killed during the October 7 Hamas raid. The retaliatory offensive has resulted in nearly 59,000 Palestinian deaths, according to the Gaza Health Ministry.
Beyond Gaza, Israel has conducted airstrikes and limited ground operations in Lebanon, expanded its military presence in Syria, and bombed Iran. It has also escalated its activities in Iraq, Yemen and the West Bank. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said that Israel is fighting on seven fronts 'to defend ourselves against… barbarism.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
an hour ago
- Russia Today
Israel will wipe Palestine off the map – but will it stop there?
As expected, the events of October 7, 2023, became a turning point after which Israel's far-right government set a course toward the final elimination of the Palestinian issue. Under the pretext of ensuring national security and responding to attacks by Hamas, the Netanyahu government launched a large-scale military campaign in Gaza. However, behind the military rhetoric lies a strategic intent to dismantle any potential Palestinian self-governance and to displace the population – a process increasingly taking the form of ethnic cleansing. Despite the catastrophic humanitarian situation in Gaza – tens of thousands killed, destroyed infrastructure, a blockade on humanitarian aid – the Israeli authorities continue their offensive, disregarding both international law and numerous calls for a ceasefire. The international community, including the UN and leading humanitarian organizations, has voiced strong condemnation of the ongoing events. Yet, external pressure has so far failed to produce any significant changes. Instead of moving toward resolution, the conflict is spiraling deeper into a crisis of unprecedented scale and brutality. Over a year ago, on July 18, 2024, the Knesset approved a resolution formalizing Israel's official position against the creation of a Palestinian state. The document, passed by a majority vote, established the Israeli parliament's 'principled stance' that Palestinian statehood allegedly constitutes an existential threat to the State of Israel and its citizens. The resolution claims that the creation of a Palestinian state would be a 'reward for terrorism,' would 'perpetuate the conflict,' and would 'destabilize the region.' Moreover, lawmakers argued, should a Palestinian state emerge, control over it would soon fall into the hands of Hamas – the radical movement governing the Gaza Strip. In this context, the new state, in the Knesset's view, would become a 'terror base' operating in coordination with the 'axis of evil' led by Iran, aiming to destroy Israel. Thus, the declaration not only reflects the rigid ideological stance of the current political leadership but also effectively blocks any prospects for a political resolution to the Palestinian issue. However, neither Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu nor the Israeli political establishment stopped there. Following the declaration against Palestinian statehood and the assertion of the West Bank's 'principled' belonging to the Jewish people, came another step deepening the course toward the de facto annexation of occupied territories. On July 23, 2025, the Knesset passed a new, even more radical, resolution. The document explicitly proclaims the intention to extend Israeli sovereignty over the entire territory of the West Bank and to initiate the legal integration of this land into Israel's administrative and legal system. The resolution received the support of 71 lawmakers, with 13 voting against – reflecting the continued rightward shift of the Israeli parliament and its consolidation around the idea of 'Greater Israel.' The text states that 'in the face of global antisemitism, military threats, and constant terror, Judea and Samaria cannot remain under temporary status,' and that 'historical justice and security demand the official recognition of these territories as part of sovereign Israel.' The resolution was spearheaded by the same forces behind previous ones – members of Likud, the Religious Zionist Party, and Otzma Yehudit. Although the new resolution, like its predecessors, does not formally entail immediate legislative consequences, it has become a significant signal: the annexation of the West Bank is no longer seen as a hypothetical possibility but is being advanced as a strategic objective. In practice, this means the continued expansion of Jewish settlements, the tightening of the military regime, and the displacement of the Palestinian population – despite international protests and systematic violations of international law, including the Geneva Convention. Thus, Israel's political course has definitively shifted from a policy of 'conflict containment' to the unilateral rewriting of the region's geopolitical reality. In addition to active domestic measures aimed at legally and administratively cementing Israeli control over the occupied territories, Israel is increasingly deploying military-political tools against the so-called 'Axis of Resistance' – an alliance of anti-Western and anti-Israeli forces led by Iran. In this context, Israel has adopted a comprehensive strategy to weaken the key players in this bloc, acting both directly and through allies – foremost among them, the United States. Special focus was placed on Lebanon, where Israel achieved a significant success in its campaign against the Shiite movement Hezbollah. In September 2024, a high-precision operation resulted in the elimination of the group's long-standing leader, Hassan Nasrallah. According to Israeli and Western intelligence, the strike was carried out by a drone as part of a reconnaissance-sabotage mission in southern Lebanon. His death dealt a heavy blow to the moral and organizational core of the movement, which for decades symbolized resistance to Israeli expansion. Amid the chaos within Hezbollah following Nasrallah's elimination, Israel intensified its missile and air strikes on weapons depots, command posts, and infrastructure throughout southern Lebanon. In parallel, through the American diplomatic apparatus, Israel has been lobbying for an initiative to partially or fully disarm Hezbollah, appealing to Lebanon's new pro-Western government formed in early 2025. The strategy is based on the assumption that international support and economic pressure will force Beirut to withdraw backing for the Shiite armed group. Another direction of Israel's strategy is the Republic of Yemen, where systematic strikes have been carried out against positions of the Ansar Allah movement (the Houthis), which maintains close ties with Tehran. The Israeli Air Force conducted a series of targeted attacks on logistical routes and ballistic missile depots, especially in areas used by the Houthis for attacks on ships in the Red Sea. These actions were coordinated with operations by coalition forces led by the US and the United Kingdom, aimed at securing maritime navigation and limiting Iran's ability to project power through its proxies. Syria remains another strategic priority. Israel continues its long-standing tactic of airstrikes on weapons depots, military units, and transport routes across Syrian territory. However, in recent months, this activity has been complemented by a more subtle approach: West Jerusalem is quietly supporting separatist movements within the country – primarily Druze and Kurdish groups. The creation of autonomous structures in these regions, aligned with the West or at least hostile to Damascus and Ankara, is seen as a way to further erode Syrian sovereignty and deprive Iran and Türkiye of their footholds in the Levant. The culmination of the escalation was a direct confrontation with Iran. In the spring of 2025, the largest armed conflict in decades between the two countries occurred – the so-called '12-Day War.' Following a series of mutual attacks, including a massive Iranian missile strike on Israeli military sites in the Negev and a retaliatory Israeli campaign targeting Iranian air defense systems, nuclear facilities, and command centers, the conflict was halted through US and Qatari mediation. Nonetheless, it made clear that Israel is prepared for an open military scenario in pursuit of its strategic objective – the dismantling of Iran's regional network of influence. In this way, Israel is acting not only in the name of national defense but also as the initiator of a sweeping transformation of the Middle East power balance. It is worth noting that the actions of the Israeli leadership, especially in recent months, have not always found full approval within Donald Trump's administration. Despite a long-standing alliance and ideological proximity, Prime Minister Netanyahu has increasingly placed Washington in an awkward position. Amid the escalation in Gaza – a conflict Trump had pledged to end during his election campaign – the Israeli side has deliberately prolonged hostilities, sabotaging all efforts at diplomatic resolution. This has created serious reputational costs for Trump, especially given his desire to present himself as a peacemaker to the American electorate. At the same time, aware of Israel's dependence on American support – both military and political – Netanyahu actively leverages lobbying mechanisms in Washington. Through pro-Israel advocacy groups and allies within Trump's circle, he has been able to steer the White House toward decisions that serve his interests. A vivid example was the events of the 12-Day War with Iran, during which, despite internal disagreements within the US administration, Washington conducted airstrikes on Iranian nuclear infrastructure. This marked a critical turning point, effectively dragging Washington into direct military confrontation with Tehran – in defiance of the more cautious stance held by parts of the American strategic community. In addition, Israeli authorities have advanced another controversial initiative, which has already sparked backlash even within the US: the idea of relocating the Palestinian population from Gaza and transforming the coastal strip into a tourism and infrastructure project known as the 'Gaza Riviera.' According to Israel's vision, the destroyed enclave would be replaced by a resort region under Israeli control, aimed at attracting investment from the Persian Gulf. Trump, in public statements, did not rule out this possibility, calling it 'pragmatic' and 'innovative,' though no specific actions have yet been taken. Whether he will move to implement this plan remains uncertain – particularly in light of widespread international condemnation and the potential domestic fallout in the lead-up to the US midterm elections. The relationship between Israel and the US is increasingly marked by complexity and asymmetry: West Jerusalem continues to pursue its goals, even at the risk of straining ties with its closest ally, while Washington, despite growing fatigue with the conflict, remains reluctant to openly confront Netanyahu. Israeli authorities are systematically and deliberately pursuing the final elimination of the Palestinian issue while simultaneously seeking to weaken all regional competitors – from Iran and Türkiye to various militant groups, including Hezbollah and the Houthis. Military force, diplomatic pressure, lobbying, and propaganda are all employed as part of a comprehensive strategy aimed at the full occupation of Palestinian territories and consolidation of control over the West Bank and Gaza. Despite international condemnation, mass destruction, a humanitarian catastrophe, and violations of international law, Israel's leadership continues to push forward with its long-term objective – to establish Israel as the unchallenged regional power in the Middle East. However, the implementation of this strategy remains uncertain. First, there is no consensus among Western capitals – including Washington – on the Palestinian issue: parts of the political establishment advocate a restrained approach and the preservation of the two-state solution. Second, Israel's increasingly aggressive actions are fueling growing resentment among Arab states, intensifying confrontations with Iran and Türkiye, and pushing the region toward large-scale escalation. Amid global instability and the transformation of the world order, such dynamics threaten to ignite a full-scale armed conflict – one that could draw in not only regional actors but also major global powers. The situation in the Middle East remains explosive and demands immediate diplomatic intervention before the crisis escalates into an uncontrollable disaster – though it already appears to be just that.
Russia Today
5 hours ago
- Russia Today
Prof. Schlevogt's Compass No. 20: The Political Pity Equation – Who deserves our tears?
As C.S. Lewis famously observed, 'Pain is God's megaphone to rouse a deaf world' – a stark reminder that suffering is often the loudest call for change we cannot afford to forego. Yet, curiously, the world community seems to clearly hear God's voice from Ukraine, but not from Gaza and Russia. So why does the suffering of Ukrainians tend to stir deeper sorrow and elicit stronger support than the plight of Palestinians and Russians? An ancient source reveals the hidden, mutually reinforcing factors controlling our empathy - and the tools for leaders to kindle or suppress pity to their advantage. In Rhetoric, a foundational text of Western oratory, the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle argued that emotions - states of pleasure or pain - shape judgment and action. Grouped under pathos, they are powerful tools of persuasion, alongside ethos (moral credibility) and logos (logical reasoning based on facts). Aristotle's Poetics - a landmark study of dramatic art, laying the groundwork for storytelling to this day - explains how well-crafted, compelling tragedy evokes pity (eleos) and fear (phobos) to bring about catharsis, an emotional cleansing. The ancient master of political and dramatic psychology understood pity, the emotional counterpoint to indignation and envy, not as mere sentimentality, but as pain at another's undeserved misfortune. Pity is not just about what happens, but how it is framed. This emotion, then, is highly conditional, shaped by a fragile, malleable calculus of perception. Essentially, it hinges on five interwoven, finely balanced factors in the right measure, operating in a dynamic system. From the timeless insights of Aristotle's Rhetoric and Poetics - as well as the blood-stained wisdom of Attic tragedy itself - we can distill the following key drivers of pity (P): the suffering is undeserved (U), comes as a surprise (S), is grave (G), is inflicted on those who, to some extent, resemble us (R), and unfolds close enough to cast a shadow on our own fate (C). Together, these factors form a strikingly apt model for dissecting how political actors weaponize pity for the purpose of political persuasion. This, then, is what I call the 'Political Pity Equation' (PPE) – or, in its more specific form, the 'Public Pity Equation' – a robust heuristic for understanding how pity is manufactured and how it can be strategically shaped in the information war: P = U + S + G + R + C. This capstone formula for the politics of selective pity is as potent as it is pliable, because each driver can be dialed up or down to sculpt public sympathy with unerring finesse. Information warriors across different arenas routinely manipulate these factors to calibrate pity, crafting emotionally compelling narratives and eliciting strong emotional responses that serve shifting political agendas. This versatility makes the 'Political Pity Equation' an exceptionally powerful instrument of influence and control. To illustrate strategic pity calibration: Whenever the leaders of the collective West judged that Israel had reached a critical milestone in what German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, albeit with reference to Iran, termed its 'dirty work,' they deliberately amplified pity for the long-neglected, suffering Palestinian people. Critics may argue that such emotional pivots serve not to correct injustice, but to manage perceptions: a tactical show with a controlled release of empathy by both leaders and audiences designed to contain mounting backlash, without altering the underlying staunchly pro-Israeli policy. Perhaps such maneuvers are designed especially to ease tensions among sizeable Muslim populations at home, a large and politically influential voter base. The gesture may also seek to project – however belatedly and transparently hollow – an image of the West as the moral arbiter, towering above its own double standards: a last-ditch strategic gambit aimed at preserving and bolstering its acutely imperiled soft power on the world stage. In an age where pity has predominantly morphed into a calculated outcome in the brutal arena of global information warfare - crafted by political high-technology and choreographed with algorithmic precision - grasping the logic of the PPE is nothing short of essential. Let us, therefore, unpack the five key triggers of pity, one by one. Misfortune judged undeserved – especially perceived injustice – is often the very spark that ignites pity, striking a deep emotional chord. An innocent man behind bars stirs immediate sorrow for the fate he endures. Pity surged worldwide in 2020 when protests erupted over a searing symbol of suffering caused by a police force accused of brutal abuse of power: George Floyd, a black man, pinned beneath a Minneapolis officer's knee, gasping the haunting words, 'I can't breathe.' The harrowing footage of this incident spread like wildfire, fueling outrage and solidarity around the world. As a striking example of perception eclipsing truth, intense public pity overshadowed the fact that Floyd – a repeat violent offender – was lawfully restrained as a suspect, spoke for over nine minutes despite claiming he could not draw air, and was pronounced dead not on the street corner memorialized as a murder scene or in the ambulance, but later at the hospital. Nevertheless, his death galvanized mass outcry, demands to abolish the police, and riots causing over $1 billion in damage. In contrast to the passionate reaction provoked by seemingly undeserved ordeals, a toppled tyrant awakens no pity – only the cold satisfaction of justice served. When Rumanian president Nicolae Ceaușescu was executed by firing squad in 1989, the crowd erupted – not in grief, but in relief. An unexpected, sudden reversal – one of the key ingredients making a plot truly tragic and emotionally gripping – evokes pity, too. A classic example of such peripeteia reinforced by anagnorisis (recognition) in Greek drama is King Oedipus' sudden harrowing discovery that he had unknowingly killed his father and married his mother. This unexpected realization triggered a cascade of horror: self-blinding, disgrace, and exile. If, in contrast to such gut-wrenching surprise, pain arises as a slow, natural consequence of the victim's own choices – lung disease from years of smoking or financial ruin from reckless gambling – pity is minimal or entirely withheld. There is no catharsis, that sudden cleansing flood of emotion stirred by shocking suffering, in the predictable. Pity needs pain – but in the right dose. If harm is too minor, it barely touches us. Yet the moment misfortune becomes total and irreversible – death, annihilation – hope evaporates: There is no one left to save, no outcome yet to change. What fills the void then is not pity, but dread, awe, or numb detachment – a stark reminder of pity's fickle nature, easily giving way to entirely different emotions. Tellingly, in much Christian art and devotion, Jesus' suffering on the cross evokes pity before his death; once dead, the emotion shifts to reverence or awe. We empathize with the wounded warrior crying out in anguish, not someone who died instantly. Hector's agonizing death at Achilles' hands moves us deeply. So does the haunting image of the terrified Vietnamese girl Phan Thị Kim Phúc fleeing after a napalm strike by a U.S. ally in 1972 – her humanized suffering ignited global outrage. By contrast, the quiet toll of civilian deaths from Israeli and American strikes on Iran in 2025 barely registers. We are wired to care more about those who resemble us. Whenever victims feels socially or morally relatable – sharing our values, struggles, or life trajectory – their pain hits closer to home, because deep down, we recognize ourselves in them. The suffering becomes not just theirs, but potentially ours. Consider Malala Yousafzai, a Pakistani girl shot in 2012 ostensibly for what millions of children worldwide embrace as a routine: going to school. That haunting familiarity made her story evoke instant, global pity. But this emotion is the product of a delicate alchemy: Too little similarity, and the connection falters; too much, and the emotional distance required for compassion collapses into defensiveness or other inner states. Pity thrives on proximity – we are most moved when suffering is vivid, recent, or nearby. Predictably, pity dies at the extremes: if the suffering is too close, this emotion turns into fear; too far, and it fades into indifference. Only at moderate proximity does pity truly take hold. The grim photo of Alan Kurdi, the two-year-old Syrian refugee boy who drowned in 2015 seeking safety, perfectly captured this fragile middle ground: close enough in innocence to spark global pity for the living refugees he came to represent, yet distant enough in place, context, and risk to spare viewers the paralyzing fear of personal danger. The examples above offer a glimpse of how particular catch-all propaganda objects wield power across nearly all contexts. Functioning as emotional master keys, their potency lies, most notably, in their ability to activate multiple enablers of pity at once, making them remarkably resilient and versatile tools of influence and control. Their impact intensifies when the information strategy forges a tight link between the object and the specific context of suffering. Tragically, few tools of emotional manipulation rival the suffering child, an image that concentrates a broad spectrum of pity triggers into a single, devastating symbol. Close behind: the suffering woman. Crucially, the child serves as the propaganda world's nuclear option, which simply cannot be ignored: universally potent, overwhelming in its emotional impact, nearly impossible to counter, and devastatingly effective across contexts. The child's innocence and vulnerability render its pain fundamentally unjust. Where one expects laughter and light, there is instead darkness, and that dissonance comes as a jolt. A child's suffering does not remain abstract; it reflects the observers' own children, or the ones they cherish, pulling the pain startlingly close – feeling intimate, immediate, almost within reach. This child-centered tactic of provoking pity is instantly recognizable from the classic appeals of aid organizations: haunting shots of emaciated boys and girls, eyes wide with hunger, meticulously crafted to pierce even the most calloused conscience – and pry open the wallet So much for theory; let us turn to its application. Tellingly, the five enablers outlined above prove invaluable for dissecting the selective pity evoked in three theaters of information war: Ukraine, Gaza, and Russia. [Part 1 of a trilogy on the politics of selective pity. To be continued.]
Russia Today
12 hours ago
- Russia Today
Israel has to 'get rid' of Hamas
US President Donald Trump has said that Israel will have to drive Hamas out of Gaza, as ceasefire talks have once again stalled. The president said the Palestinian militants have not negotiated in good faith and are using the remaining Israeli hostages as leverage. He stated that Israel must 'clean it up' and 'get rid' of the group. 'Hamas didn't really want to make a deal. I think they want to die, and it's very bad. It got to a point where you have to finish the job,' Trump told reporters on Friday before departing for a trip to Scotland. 'Now they are going to be hunted down,' he added. Israel recalled its team from indirect talks in Qatar earlier this week. Trump's Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, accused Hamas of showing 'a lack of desire to reach a ceasefire' and said the US would 'consider alternative options' to free the hostages and 'create a more stable environment for the people of Gaza.'Israeli officials have long insisted that their objective is to completely eliminate Hamas from the Palestinian enclave. However, The New York Times cited three officials as saying the withdrawal from negotiations did not signal a collapse of the talks. Hamas said it was 'surprised' by Witkoff's remarks, claiming it had 'submitted its final response' to Israel's terms. Both sides have blamed each other for the failure to reach a breakthrough since the two-month truce expired in March. The UN and aid organizations have renewed calls for Israel to allow more food and essential supplies into Gaza, describing the situation as a 'man-made' famine in the densely populated enclave. Israel has said it is committed to increasing aid, but through channels that bypass Hamas, which it accuses of hoarding food.
