Cracks in Israeli Society: A Moral Crisis in the Army and Political Confusion Pledging Decisions to Washington

While the Israeli government attempts to market the war as an arena for restoring deterrence, analyses from security and intellectual elites within Hebrew society paint a completely different picture. These readings do not merely observe military failure but delve into the structure of the military establishment and the mood of a society now suffering from deep rifts and questions about the utility of excessive force.

Reuven Gal, the former chief psychologist of the Israeli army, warned of a severe moral collapse striking the ranks of the fighting forces, describing soldiers as the silent victims of this crisis. Gal affirmed that the events of October 7th were not merely a security failure but revealed a breakdown in values and culture that left officers and soldiers feeling deeply frustrated and betrayed their principles.

In his analysis, Gal pointed out that symptoms of moral injury have begun to appear clearly among an increasing number of military personnel, a deep wound hidden behind official propaganda. This erosion of trust within the military establishment threatens the cohesion that Israel has long boasted of, describing its army as the 'most moral' in the world.

For his part, writer Gideon Levy expanded the circle of criticism to include Israeli society as a whole, considering that the crisis has gone beyond military conduct to how the public deals with the idea of continuous death. Levy believes that there is a state of normalizing loss and glorifying sacrifice, which reflects a defect in society's perception of the limits of power and the ability to continue in the cycle of violence.

Regarding the West Bank file, historian Gideon Avital Epstein directed direct accusations at the military leadership, holding Eyal Zamir fully responsible for the escalation of settler violence. Epstein described what is happening as 'Jewish terrorism' that is sponsored or condoned by the army and police, making the lives of Palestinians a daily hell.

Epstein warned that the involvement of soldiers in protecting or participating in settler attacks puts Israel at risk of international prosecution for committing crimes against humanity. This path, as he described it, reflects a moral decline that transforms the military establishment into a tool to serve extremist settlement agendas, far from any legal standards.

On the strategic level, military analyst Yoav Limor considered that more than 900 days of fighting have not yielded any real victory on any of the open fronts. Limor explained that Israel has lost the initiative, as its fateful decisions are now being cooked in the corridors of Washington instead of Tel Aviv.

Limor described direct American intervention, and preventing Israel from carrying out certain military operations, as a public insult to Israeli sovereignty. He concluded in his vision that the Hebrew state is gradually transforming into something resembling an 'American protectorate' that cannot move without a green light from the White House.

In a related context, former Colonel Talia Lankry affirmed that the military objectives set for the war, such as disarming Hezbollah, were unrealistic from the start. Lankry stressed that the absence of a clear political vision makes any military achievement merely a drain on resources without reaching a real end to the conflict.

Lankry believes that trust between the leadership and the public is a strategic resource that has been squandered during this long confrontation due to unachievable promises. This confusion in setting goals has led to prolonging the war without a political horizon that ensures the stability of military results on the ground.

In turn, former military intelligence chief Amos Yadlin admitted that the ceasefire in Lebanon was a necessary step, even though it was forcibly imposed on the Israeli government. Yadlin explained that the army had exhausted most of its operational objectives, and that continuing to fight without political cover would have led to counterproductive results.

Yadlin criticized the policy of deception practiced by the government towards the Israeli people by offering illusory military promises that cannot be translated into reality. He called for the necessity of recognizing the limits of military power and seeking diplomatic paths to extricate Israel from the state of permanent attrition it is experiencing.

All these opinions converge at one point: the existence of a huge gap between the official discourse promoting victory and the troubled reality on the fronts and internally. The confusion of the political leadership and the expansion of expectations have ultimately led to a state of strategic disarray that threatens the independence of Israeli decision-making.

In conclusion, these testimonies from within the Israeli establishment show that the biggest challenge facing Israel is not only military but a crisis of identity and leadership. Between the collapse of military values and the pledging of political decisions to external powers, it seems that Israeli society is heading towards a harsh review of the results of wars without a compass.

What was revealed on October 7th was not just an operational failure, but a cultural and moral failure that led to a moral collapse within the army ranks.