This issue is preventing our website from loading properly. Please review the following troubleshooting tips or contact us at [email protected].
By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.
Your guide to the most important world stories of the day
Essential analysis of the stories shaping geopolitics on the continent
The latest news, analysis, and data from the country each week
Weekly update on what’s driving U.S. national security policy
Evening roundup with our editors’ favorite stories of the day
One-stop digest of politics, economics, and culture
Weekly update on developments in India and its neighbors
Curated guides on geopolitics and current affairs
Analysis: For the First Time Since Oct. 7, a Broad Israeli Backlash Against the War in Gaza
Create an FP account to save articles to read later.
Sign Up
ALREADY AN FP SUBSCRIBER? LOGIN
Downloadable PDFs are a benefit of an FP subscription.
Subscribe Now
ALREADY AN FP SUBSCRIBER? LOGIN
Gifting articles is a subscriber benefit.
Subscribe Now
ALREADY AN FP SUBSCRIBER? LOGIN
This article is an Insider exclusive.
Contact us at [email protected] to learn about upgrade options, unlocking the ability to gift this article.
Print Archive
See All
Follow FP on X
Follow FP on LinkedIn
Follow FP on Instagram
Follow FP on Facebook
Follow FP on X
Follow FP on LinkedIn
Follow FP on Instagram
Follow FP on Facebook
Foreign Policy Magazine is a division of Graham Holdings Company. All contents (c) 2025, Graham Digital Holding Company. All rights reserved. Foreign Policy, 655 15th St NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC, 20005.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
Around this time last year, as then-U.S. President Joe Biden was outlining possible terms for a cease-fire in Gaza, an Israeli defense official explained to me why the military supported a pause in the fighting. The reason had little to do with the combat itself. Instead, a cease-fire offered a chance to restore the social contract between the state and the Israeli public, including the understanding that Israel should only wage wars that serve the public good and always prioritize the release of captive soldiers and civilians.
These days, as Israel marks 18 months of war in Gaza, that unwritten agreement is a dead letter. It was steadily undermined by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who chose to press on with the fighting despite mounting evidence that his war aims were unachievable—and finally shredded by his decision in March to unilaterally scrap the cease-fire with Hamas. That brief truce, brokered by the United States in January, had freed 33 hostages and held out the possibility of further releases. Instead, Israeli assaults on Gaza are back with a vengeance.
Around this time last year, as then-U.S. President Joe Biden was outlining possible terms for a cease-fire in Gaza, an Israeli defense official explained to me why the military supported a pause in the fighting. The reason had little to do with the combat itself. Instead, a cease-fire offered a chance to restore the social contract between the state and the Israeli public, including the understanding that Israel should only wage wars that serve the public good and always prioritize the release of captive soldiers and civilians.
These days, as Israel marks 18 months of war in Gaza, that unwritten agreement is a dead letter. It was steadily undermined by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who chose to press on with the fighting despite mounting evidence that his war aims were unachievable—and finally shredded by his decision in March to unilaterally scrap the cease-fire with Hamas. That brief truce, brokered by the United States in January, had freed 33 hostages and held out the possibility of further releases. Instead, Israeli assaults on Gaza are back with a vengeance.
Netanyahu now vows to continue the fighting until Hamas is defeated. (Israeli bombardments have already destroyed much of Gaza but not Hamas.) But Israeli reservists are reeling from multiple combat tours since Oct. 7, 2023, and families of the hostages feel their loved ones have been abandoned. In late April, Netanyahu rejected a proposal by Hamas to free the remaining hostages in exchange for an end to the war—prompting an extraordinary response from the mother of one hostage. “Before you send your son to war, face the reality,” said Anat Angrest, addressing other parents who had gathered at a demonstration in Tel Aviv and showing a photo of her son, who was captured on Oct. 7. “Look at how my son has been abandoned and is now being sacrificed. Look, mother, at how instead of ending the war and getting my son home, they are sending your son to fight a war that is endangering them both.” This is precisely what the army hoped to avoid.
The result of all this is a domestic backlash against the war that is broader than anything Israel has seen since Oct. 7.
It started with a letter signed by nearly 1,000 mostly retired Israeli Air Force reservists in early April, just before the Passover holiday. “This war primarily serves political and personal interests, not national security interests,” the letter read. “The continued war does not help to achieve any of the war goals and will lead to the killing of hostages, IDF [Israel Defense Forces] soldiers, and innocent civilians and further erode reservist forces.” Air Force commander Tomer Bar and IDF Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir, who had tried to thwart publication of the letter, discharged the active-duty reservists who signed it. Within days, thousands more signed similar letters, including former heads of Mossad, members of special forces, Navy officers, and cyberwarfare and military intelligence teams, including hundreds who are in active reserve duty. Other letters have been issued by health care professionals, academics, and artists.
To be clear, the backlash is decidedly not a response to Israel’s excessive use of force that has killed tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians. (Although it is noteworthy that Moshe Yaalon, a hawkish politician and former military chief, described Israeli actions in northern Gaza this year as “ethnic cleansing” and condemned the state for sending soldiers to “kill babies in Gaza.”) It is mainly about prioritizing the hostages—even if it means ending the war. It is also—or perhaps primarily—a vote of no confidence in the Netanyahu government, which many Israelis believe is perpetuating the war in order to remain in power.
Polls have shown for months now that a solid majority of Israelis—even among those who voted for the Netanyahu coalition—support ending the war to release the hostages. Most Israelis understand by now that military operations aimed at freeing the hostages are more likely to get them killed. A majority now supports an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, even if this leaves a vastly diminished Hamas in control for the time being.
The significance of this backlash isn’t just in the number of people calling for an end to the war but also in the titles some of them hold. Prominent members of Israel’s security elite are among those publicly accusing Netanyahu and his far-right coalition partners of sacrificing the hostages for political ends. In other words, this government is waging the current phase of the war in Gaza without broad public backing and against the better judgment of people who devoted their lives to the country’s security. For Israel, that is a first.
This backlash coincides with a separate but related crisis: a growing shortage of reservists. According to multiple press reports, there has been a 50 percent drop in the rate that reservists are showing up for duty since Israel resumed hostilities in March. Most Israelis are conscripted at age 18 for two to three years and perform compulsory reserve duty until age 40. Their reasons for staying away this time are varied. They include family demands, war fatigue, and especially their financial situation. (75 percent of reservists surveyed in February said the long months spent fighting in Gaza harmed them financially, and 41 percent reported that they were either fired or left their jobs.) But some are refusing for ideological reasons—whether because they distrust this government, doubt that further military operations will bring back the hostages, resent that ultra-Orthodox Jews remain exempt from army service, worry about being incriminated for war crimes, or indeed because they morally oppose how Israel has conducted the war.
This soft refusal to serve—whether for political, ideological, or personal reasons—could force the government to adapt its approach in Gaza. It might not happen overnight. But if Israel moves to take full control over all aspects of life in Gaza and resettle Israelis there, as Netanyahu’s coalition partners demand, the manpower challenge will likely grow. The government might be banking on the idea that military service remains sacrosanct and ultimately reservists will show up. Failing that, the military could be forced to pull troops from other fronts, including Lebanon, Syria, and even the West Bank.
In the long term, a trend toward dissent could have significant ramifications for the country. The Israeli military has been a “people’s army” since its inception, relying on reservists to fight short, decisive wars. In countries that depend on reservist armies, governments must take public sentiment into account. As Netanyahu’s government continues to neglect the hostages and prolong the war, the backlash is likely to grow.
Mairav Zonszein is the senior Israel analyst at the International Crisis Group. She has written for the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Columbia Journalism Review, among others. X: @MairavZ
Commenting on this and other recent articles is just one benefit of a Foreign Policy subscription.
Already a subscriber? Log In.
Subscribe Subscribe
View Comments
Join the conversation on this and other recent Foreign Policy articles when you subscribe now.
Subscribe Subscribe
Not your account? Log out
View Comments
Please follow our comment guidelines, stay on topic, and be civil, courteous, and respectful of others’ beliefs.
The default username below has been generated using the first name and last initial on your FP subscriber account. Usernames may be updated at any time and must not contain inappropriate or offensive language.
By doing so, he makes Palestinian suffering U.S. policy.
|
Palestinian American peace activist Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib discusses where he thinks the war is heading.
|
By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.
✓ Signed Up
You’re on the list! More ways to stay updated on global news:
✓ Signed Up
✓ Signed Up
✓ Signed Up
✓ Signed Up
✓ Signed Up
It’s clear that the second Trump administration is aiming for change—not inertia—in U.S. foreign policy.
The U.S. secretary of state stands for no principle other than serving the man who appointed him.
European self-reliance for security will cost U.S. jobs, profits, and influence. 
Ten thinkers on what to make of the opening salvo of the president’s second term.
|
|
|
|
FP’s flagship evening newsletter guiding you through the most important world stories of the day, written by Alexandra Sharp. Delivered weekdays.
By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.
✓ Signed Up
Specialty rates for students and faculty.
Lock in your rates for longer.
Unlock powerful intelligence for your team.
Follow FP on X
Follow FP on LinkedIn
Follow FP on Instagram
Follow FP on Facebook
Follow FP on X
Follow FP on LinkedIn
Follow FP on Instagram
Follow FP on Facebook
Foreign Policy Magazine is a division of Graham Holdings Company. All contents (c) 2025, Graham Digital Holding Company. All rights reserved. Foreign Policy, 655 15th St NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC, 20005.
