Political Divisions in the “Israeli” Military and Government

By Mohammad Hammoud

The relationship between the military and the government in "Israel" has historically involved a complex interplay of power, trust, and political allegiance. However, recent developments have exposed significant divisions within these systems, driven by political polarization, ideological differences, and various crises. These divisions threaten not only "Israel’s" internal stability but also its ability to address external challenges. This essay examines the causes, consequences, and broader context of the evolving relationship between "Israel’s" military and political leadership.

Causes of Division

Political polarization is a central factor in the growing divide within “Israel”. The diversity of “Israel’s” population, reflected in the military, contributes to this fragmentation. The entity’s army includes secular Jews, ultra-Orthodox Jews, Druze, and Bedouins, each shaped by distinct historical and political perspectives. For example, right-leaning soldiers often view military operations in Palestinian territories as crucial for security and religious heritage, while left-leaning personnel may see these actions as ethically problematic and damaging to “Israel’s” international reputation.

The rise of far-right and religious political parties, coupled with a fragmented opposition, has intensified disputes over key policies. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, heavily influenced by ultra-nationalist and religious factions, has pursued controversial judicial reforms that critics argue threaten democracy. This friction has spilled over into the military, straining relationships between soldiers and their leadership.

A particularly contentious issue is the conscription of ultra-Orthodox "yeshiva" students. While many secular “Israelis” and military leaders support their inclusion in the draft, ultra-Orthodox political parties staunchly oppose it, further deepening ideological divides within the military and society.

The Hamas Al-Aqsa Flood operation on October 7, 2023, exposed serious security lapses, exacerbating tensions. The “Israeli” army faced criticism for its unpreparedness, leading to high-profile resignations, including Chief of Staff Lieutenant General Herzi Halevi. This crisis highlighted existing rifts among soldiers and commanders, as ideological divisions became more pronounced in the aftermath.

Disagreements over military ethics and operational strategies have further complicated matters. High-profile incidents, such as operations resulting in civilian casualties, have drawn sharp criticism from different political factions. This has pressured military leaders to align with government policies even when such alignment conflicts with their professional judgments, straining the already delicate relationship between the military and political leadership.

Consequences of Division

The consequences of these divisions are profound. A fragmented “Israeli” army risks losing the unity essential for operational effectiveness. Ideological disagreements can result in hesitations and conflicting approaches during missions, undermining the chain of command.

The “Israeli” army’s role as a unifying institution in “Israel” is also at risk. Historically, military service has fostered a shared “Israeli” identity across diverse communities. However, as divisions deepen, the military risks becoming a microcosm of “Israel’s” societal polarization, undermining its role as a bridge across divides.

Internationally, a politicized “Israeli” army damages “Israel’s” reputation. Reports of internal dissent may embolden adversaries and complicate diplomatic relations, particularly with allies like the United States, which views “Israel’s” military stability as a cornerstone of regional security.

Domestically, these divisions strain civil-military relations. A divided military may lose public trust, especially if it is perceived as favoring one political camp. This erosion of confidence risks intensifying societal divides, creating a feedback loop of polarization.

Conclusion

The political divisions within “Israel’s” military and government highlight the deep fractures in “Israeli” society. What was once a source of national unity, the “Israeli” army now mirrors the ideological, cultural, and political polarization permeating the nation. These divisions not only threaten the military’s operational effectiveness but also erode its historic role as a unifying institution. The evolving relationship between "Israel’s" military and political leadership underscores the challenges of maintaining cohesion in a society increasingly defined by its differences.