It was an unusually dramatic gathering. The chief of staff convened all senior officers from the rank of lieutenant colonel and above, both active duty and reserve, for what the military calls a “wake-up talk.”
“Is this the army you want?” he challenged the officers assembled in the air force auditorium, holding up a patch bearing symbols that did not align with the spirit of the IDF, removed from a soldier’s uniform. “This is a rebellion against IDF values,” he added.
His remarks about ethical erosion during the course of the fighting immediately energized segments of the media, long accustomed to casting the IDF in a negative light. They seized the moment eagerly, declaring with certainty: “The IDF is morally collapsing.” “Combat corrupts, we are heading toward disaster.”
The claim that the IDF is undergoing moral disintegration sounds dramatic, and the reports from the field are indeed troubling. Yet in reality, it rests on a superficial reading of a far more complex situation.
The extreme conditions soldiers handle
A deeper examination of the nature of the fighting, its duration, and the conditions under which soldiers and commanders operate leads to the opposite conclusion: What we are witnessing is not moral collapse but moral resilience. Soldiers and commanders, both in active service and in the reserves, continue to risk and sacrifice their lives in a prolonged struggle under extreme conditions.
First, one must understand the point of departure. IDF soldiers and commanders have been engaged in sustained combat for nearly three years, across multiple fronts simultaneously. They are not there out of a desire to fight or to shed blood but out of a deep commitment to defend the State of Israel and its citizens.
Every operational action, whether in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, or the West Bank, is first and foremost a moral decision. The choice to enter enemy territory, to take risks, and to operate under complex legal and operational constraints all reflect a profound ethical commitment. The accumulation of exceptional incidents is not evidence of moral disintegration but of prolonged strain and the need for more precise command guidance under challenging and at times confusing combat conditions.
Second, prolonged wars create psychological strain, cumulative fatigue, and erosion in judgment. Young soldiers and junior commanders are required to confront complex leadership dilemmas, often within seconds, while leading young troops who bring with them their personal worlds, values, frustrations, and, at times, their mistakes. In such situations, even a professional and values-driven army may experience deviations.
The question is not whether such incidents occur, but how the system responds to them. The very existence of open, critical, and candid command discourse is evidence of a living system seeking correction, not one in collapse.
Finding discipline and ethics in the army
I recall a day during my service as a reserve battalion commander, when our unit was deployed on operational duty in one of the sectors in the West Bank. One of the company commanders called me and asked me to come to the outpost: “The soldiers are asking me to dismiss a good and experienced soldier who tried to take personal belongings from an Arab civilian who arrived at the checkpoint. I am unsure how to proceed,” he said.
For me, this was the clearest indication that our battalion was healthy in terms of discipline and ethics. Incidents of this kind may occur both in routine operations and in combat, but the strong reaction of the soldiers demonstrated that the internal cultural mechanisms within the unit were robust enough to correct occasional moral failures.
Another source of dissonance lies in the gap between the battlefield and the media arena. Isolated incidents, often lacking full context, receive wide exposure and create a sense of generalization. Yet an army is not measured by a single incident but by its overall organizational culture, its training, its oversight, and its ability to learn and improve.
In the case of the IDF, the very fact that the chief of staff stands before his commanders and demands uncompromising correction is evidence of the army’s moral compass and its ethical backbone. Mechanisms of investigation, oversight, and enforcement continue to function even under fire, and this is a sign of moral strength, not its absence.
That said, there is room for substantive and constructive criticism. When recurring incidents appear, even if they are not representative, they may indicate localized shortcomings in the command compass at certain levels.
The responsibility here lies first and foremost with commanders to sharpen boundaries, to be more present in the field, and to invest in ethical guidance alongside operational training. Command is not only about managing missions but also about shaping conduct.
The solutions are not slogans but actions: strengthening command presence at the tactical level, maintaining continuous ethical discourse rather than reacting only to incidents, equipping soldiers with tools to cope with psychological strain, and ensuring consistent and clear enforcement. In addition, it is essential to reinforce a sense of purpose among soldiers, to remind them why they fight and what distinguishes the IDF as a military that strives to act morally even against a ruthless enemy.
Ultimately, the IDF is not morally disintegrating. Moral principles are not a constraint but a guiding track. The IDF operates in a complex reality in which the tension between operational necessity and values is constant. The very existence of this tension, and the ongoing effort to navigate it, is the clearest proof that the moral compass is alive and functioning, even if it requires periodic recalibration.
The writer is a retired IDF commander and the CEO of the Israel Defense and Security Forum (IDSF).