What Is the IDF Trying to Sell Us?
How Orders Turned into an Identity Parade While the Enemy Waits at the Border**
There was a time when saying “The Israel Defense Forces” instantly produced a clear image.
A soldier with an M16.
Mud on his boots.
A sleeping bag on his back.
A commander who says “Follow me.”
And an enemy who thinks twice.
A people’s army.
Simple, disciplined, mission-driven.
An army that existed for one reason only: to defend the country.
And today?
Before training begins, there’s a sensitivity questionnaire.
Before a soldier is deployed to the line, someone checks whether he might be “emotionally triggered.”
Before a unit flag is raised, a staff meeting debates whether it is “sufficiently inclusive.”
Something happened to the army.
It became layered, sophisticated – and above all, confused.
From “This Is the Order” to “Let’s Reflect on How This Makes Us Feel”
You won’t hear a commander today say, “This is how it’s done because it’s right.”
Instead, you’ll hear:
- “Let’s examine the sense of belonging of all platoon components.”
- “We should discuss the meaning of national symbols in a post-gender era.”
- “Remember, the soldier is first and foremost an individual with a complex value system.”
It sounds enlightened.
Very modern.
Very thoughtful.
Meanwhile, Hezbollah watches from the other side of the fence and says:
“Please, continue the discussion. We’ll wait.”
The New Order: Be Yourself – Just Don’t Offend Anyone
Want to call your soldiers “brothers in arms”?
Check first if the phrase is exclusionary.
Want to say “For the people of Israel”?
Careful – it may be perceived as insufficiently neutral.
Want to raise the Israeli flag at a company ceremony?
Only if you also add a statement on gender equality and mention “the community.”
Everything now passes through a filter of sensitivity,
until the core message – we are an army defending the Jewish state –
suddenly feels… awkward to say out loud.
Who Is the Enemy? Depends on the Unit
In Golani?
The enemy is the terrorist.
In the Education Corps?
The enemy is “oppressive discourse.”
In the gender directorate?
The enemy is the glass ceiling.
In military police investigations?
The enemy is an uncareful TikTok post.
And then, when actual fighting breaks out, everyone seems surprised –
as if no one put it on the calendar.
Motivational Talks Became Group Therapy Sessions
Once, a commander stood in front of his soldiers and said:
“We’re here to fight, because we have no other country.”
Today?
- “Everyone write down how the word mission makes you feel.”
- “Let’s draw our identity as a colorful collage.”
- “Describe how you perceive sacrifice – but without judgment.”
Somewhere along the way, someone forgot that soldiers came to defend a nation,
not to co-author a children’s book about emotions.
The Uncomfortable Truth
An army is not a platform for cultural representation.
It is not a laboratory for identity experiments.
And it is not a therapeutic space.
An army exists to win wars.
Diversity matters – until it replaces combat readiness.
Sensitivity matters – until it paralyzes command authority.
Inclusion matters – until the army forgets who it is and why it exists.
The IDF cannot fight when every operational decision must pass through an identity committee.
A Right-Wing Conclusion (Yes, We Still Use Those)
The IDF is still our army.
But it urgently needs to remember its purpose.
- An army does not apologize for loving its flag.
- A soldier should not feel guilty for believing in the justice of his mission.
- Orders are not opinion pieces.
- And national defense is not a social workshop.
What needs to return?
- Clear emphasis on defense – not just messaging.
- Moral leadership that is unafraid to say: we are Jewish, Zionist, and here to protect this state.
- Fewer soft texts in operational orders – and more morale, discipline, and belief in the mission.
Because while armies debate identity,
their enemies prepare rockets.
And rockets, inconveniently,
are not very sensitive.
הירשמו כדי לקבל את הפוסטים האחרונים אל המייל שלכם
