It's a little hard to believe that there are those who spoke here, just two or three months ago, about refusal or non-volunteering. And they talked about it with such abysmal seriousness, so decisive, that those around them dared to threaten that soon the government would realize the hard way that it was being left without an army.
IDF Chief of Staff Responds to Refusal Calls: "Focus on Security Mission and Cohesion // IDF Spokesperson
Of the habits that have disappeared in the dust of war, the threat of insubordination will probably return last, if at all, to the political toolbox. And not just because we learned the hard way that we don't have the privilege of playing with bending hands at the expense of security. But in the end – the large, important, substantial mass of fighters, pilots, intelligence personnel – also stabilized. Including those who returned ranks and signed waivers. They saluted the nation, and the nation does not stop and will not stop saluting them back. And rightly so. The residues of the past like never were.
And what is worth remembering is that this was not a movement "from below." This wave of rejectionism was one of the products of a clear political project by very senior figures in Israel's security elite. Not the maid, but the retired one. But in militaristic Israeli society, ideological continuity between the "former" and the servants is almost absolute. The "former" are a source of inspiration and authority. And when they rule, for example, that "Netanyahu is dangerous to Israel's security," they are actually signaling to the defense establishment that it must maintain a suspicious, even confrontational, attitude toward the prime minister. And when its people slowly begin to trickle in messages about civil disobedience, then disobedience, then non-volunteerism, and then full moral backing for those who refuse, they don't just express an opinion. They outline a desirable course of action and create, knowingly and deliberately, a crisis of loyalty.
"Calls for refusal are contrary to democracy", Netanyahu at the cabinet meeting (archive), photo: Mark Israel Salem
The comeback of a nation in uniform
In the days immediately after October 7, it became clear that they, of all people, were somewhat left without an army. The masses showed up, the refuseniks showed up, the non-volunteers showed up. They did not show up out of loyalty to Netanyahu's government, nor out of contempt for the security elite. They came out of a sense of mission and urgency that does not depend on public atmosphere and political polarization. This indicates that the security elite, from writing the ethos, has lost something of its relevance, perhaps also of its charisma.
Who enters this space? Not the government, but us. You could call it the spirit of the people. The same mass gathering under the flag in moments of crisis that overwhelms a primeval, survivalist sense of solidarity. The army suddenly becomes a much more cooperative, social, egalitarian space than we thought. Suddenly, it is returning to fulfilling one of its social functions that we thought was obsolete: social integration. Suddenly it is not part of a mechanism used to divide, but the arena into which everyone flows in order to feel part of the collective experience, part of national togetherness.
"The Information Army". Citizens' mobilization for the struggle, photo: Kan 11
In the past year, when some of us have already begun eulogizing the idea of a "people's army," the ways in which the heterogeneous, diverse nature of various branches of the army has eroded have entered public awareness. There was talk of a "class army" – elite units to which social advantage ensures easier access, and field units in which a greater representation of the "Second Israel" was seen. It didn't happen everywhere, but there were units where it stood out. 8200 and the Air Force, as opposed to the field forces. The social stratification in the army was accompanied by politicization: political polarization reached within the army and threatened to tear it apart from within. Suddenly, something terrible happened: squadrons of one kind and another and elite units became identified with a political-ideological agenda that cannot be disguised.
Well, the feeling is that the rumors of the death of the People's Army were premature – and moreover, it seems that our identity as a "nation in uniform" has returned to our lives. No, not the same tattered stereotype of Israel as a militaristic society, one that is fascinated by weapons, military might, and yearns for territorial expansion. And no, not Israel, which is tainted by cultural militarism, that worships generals, that "salutes and shuts up" those in rank and sees the security elite as the gatekeeper of democracy and the dictator of national values.
IDF soldiers in the Gaza Strip, photo: AFP
Back to the concept of a "nation in uniform," which sees the army as a common social asset. Respect has returned to the unifying, conciliatory, unifying social role of the army. A kind of soft militarism has returned, which is characterized by suspicion of arrogant elites, of conceptions, of the foolish use of the army for political maneuvers. Militarism that does not translate class advantage into political blackmail.
Politics out there please
The profound significance of this is that at this stage it will not be possible to return to a reality in which distinct social groups control key positions in the army, and through them intervene not only in shaping national values and symbols, but also dictate the military ethos and combat ethic.
Soldiers of the 6th Brigade Battalion assisting farmers near Beit Hillel, Photo: Eyal Margolin - Ginny
This disturbs the critics of the People's Army. Some already warn of a "nationalist takeover," others point to "worship of power." These responses reflect concern that groups hitherto not allowed to participate in drafting the Israeli security code of ethics – including the debate over its goals and borders – may demand their place at the negotiating table.
This is a welcome change on both the social and political levels. The IDF, as a national symbol, is once again playing the role of softening trends of ideological polarization and social conflicts. But more importantly, the security elite, which provides him with an ideological, ideological and sometimes moral envelope, will no longer be able to drag him into its political struggles. For the simple reason: there are too many people who feel that their army has been given back.
Wrong? We'll fix it! If you find a mistake in the article, please share with us