Yossi Schwartz (ISL section of the RCIT in Israel/Occupied Palestine) 24.08.2025
The Vietnam War nearly disintegrated the U.S. military. Since then, the U.S. military has opposed conscription. Conscription was disqualified in 2003:
“A proposal from the Republican side of Congress, which was much more moderate than that of two Democratic members of Congress, was thrown into the trash for lack of support from members of the House. According to this proposal, submitted by Kurt Walden and Nick Smith, all young people aged 18-22 in the country would be obligated to undergo military training and training, without requiring them to serve in the military afterwards. The chilly response to this proposal, which merely spoke of the need to increase preparedness in the face of the threats facing the United States, made it clear that America is not at all ready to discuss anything that appears to be a renewal of conscription.[i]“
This issue is addressed by Yagil Levy in the Haaretz newspaper.
He writes:
“The philosopher Noam Chomsky attributed to the American Army an important role in creating the resistance to the war in Vietnam. Wars like the Vietnam War, Chomsky argued, “are just too cruel and violent and murderous. Civilians (i.e., an army based on compulsory military service) will not be able to do this for a long time. What happened was that the army began to disintegrate. One of the reasons the army withdrew was that the military high command wanted it out there. They were afraid that they would not have an army anymore.” Indeed, Chomsky did a good job of describing the limitations that characterize an army whose soldiers are conscripted in conscription.
The Gaza mud is quite reminiscent of the Vietnamese mud, and it may also remind it in terms of the circumstances of the exit. In Israel, there were two cases in which public opposition to the war was successful: in the two military withdrawals from Lebanon (1985 and 2000) – thanks to the protest’s focus on the price expressed in the lives of soldiers, not on the political logic of the war or its justification. This success stemmed from the ability to develop a direct threat to the army’s ability to fight. Signs of erosion were indeed discovered, and they caused the army to support the withdrawal, or at least to accept it. The army does not seek war or peace. He is simply sensitive to his organizational interests.
This is also the key in Gaza. The war does not arouse opposition because of its lack of political logic, its degree of morality, or the relatively small number of soldiers killed in it, but only because of the danger it poses to the lives of the hostages. This is almost the only reason why tens of thousands of people took to the streets on the last “strike day.” However, this protest has a limited impact on the government. Impact can only be created if there is a direct threat to the integrity of the army.
The internal disintegration within the army has already reached higher levels than the public knows, due to the ability to conceal and improvise solutions – largely at the local level and thanks to the loyal manpower pool of religious Zionism. Still, the disintegration continues, and in it lies the key to ending the war. It can be expressed in the increase in the number of pilots who are already refraining from attacking in Gaza, the steep decline in the rates of reporting for reserve duty to the point that even improvised solutions (such as hiring replacements) will not help, and the refusal of conscripts and reservists to carry out particularly dangerous but pointless missions. “I knew that to charge now was to die in a stupid war,” a paratrooper sergeant explained of his refusal to enter into contact with Hezbollah fighters in February 1999.
This is what can happen in the much more worn out army, which fights in Gaza, with illogical goals, on behalf of an illegitimate government, and for missions that fly a black flag over them. Only the threat of disintegration can, with a medium-high probability, cause army commanders to collectively understand the level of destruction they are inflicting on the army and weigh it against the influence of the right-wing poison machine. Then maybe they will stand up to the government and demand a stop”.
Contrary to the populist image, not all of the army has been captured by the messianic right, and there are many and strong plots in it that are still controlled by the descendants of the founding generation. Destroying the army so that someone else will be built in its place is not their desire, and bereavement is perceived by them as a disaster and not as a badge of sectoral prestige. The sensitivity to the opinion of the “people” is still strong in the “people’s army.” If the anti-war movement wants to succeed, especially after failing to enlist the support of the U.S. administration, it must focus on the military. That’s the key” [.II]
What’s more, the army announced today that the occupation of Gaza will take no less than a year.
Endnotes:
[i] https://www.haaretz.co.il/misc/2003-01-05/ty-article/0000017f-ee3d-da6f-a77f-fe3fcf720000
[ii] https://www.haaretz.co.il/opinions/2025-08-24/ty-article-opinion/.premium/00000198-d7c9-dd20-a5fc-ffeb071d0000