Published On 4/28/2026
The Haaretz article did not wait for the speech of Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir to describe the crisis of the Israeli army. Ofer Shelah and Adeth Shafran Gittelman went directly to the essence of the issue, which is that an army that loses discipline and values does not turn into a more ferocious force, but rather into an “armed gang,” and its end is not only the erosion of its moral image, but defeat on the battlefield.
The article was written by Ofer Shelah, head of the National Security Policy Research Program at the Institute for National Security Studies and a former member of the Knesset, and Adeth Shafran Gitelman, a senior researcher in the same program. Therefore, the warning does not come from outside the Israeli establishment, nor from traditional human rights discourse, but rather from within the field of Israeli national security itself.
Read also
list of 3 itemsend of list
This background gives the article special value, because it treats ethics and discipline as part of the army’s ability to fight, not just a propaganda or legal issue.
This phrase gains additional weight after Zamir’s statements, yesterday, Monday, at the Supreme Command Conference, when he warned against the phenomenon of looting within the army, saying that “the phenomenon of looting, if it exists, is despicable and may stain the entire Israeli army,” pledging to investigate these cases and not to pass them by.
The talk is no longer about individual cases, but rather about a declared fear of the image of the “army of thieves,” as a long war turns into an environment that produces looting, chaos, and behavior that damages the image of the army from within.
The writers believe that the Chief of Staff does not have the luxury of “choosing his battles” in this file, despite the pressure on him from the political leadership. According to the article, the army leadership is facing an unprecedented situation, as the Prime Minister, the Minister of Defense, and members of the government and the Knesset attack the army leaders on an almost daily basis, and cabinet meetings turn into a media space for bashing the Chief of Staff.
From plunder to disintegration
Zamir’s statements about looting came within a broader discourse about “non-value events” within the army. He said that the Israeli army is “an army with values,” but he acknowledged that what has emerged recently is the product of a “long and complex period,” warning that the standard deterioration may be dangerous “no less than operational threats.”
It also placed restrictions on soldiers and army reserves’ use of social networks to publish controversial messages or for self-promotion, and considered this a “red line.”
But the Haaretz article goes further than Zamir’s speech. He does not see looting as an isolated incident, but rather as a result of the continuation of the war, the depletion of regular and reserve forces, and the erosion of the authority of commanders.
Shelah and Shafran Gittleman write that a prolonged war “makes it difficult for its participants to maintain the image of a warrior,” and that the reserve forces were not built to provide hundreds of days of service annually for the third year in a row.
The issue is not only the theft of property in southern Lebanon or Gaza, but rather an indication of the collapse of the boundaries between the disciplined army and the unruly force
War without end
The deeper danger, according to the article, is that this long war leaves many in the service viewing every Palestinian or Lebanese as an enemy “doomed to death or humiliation.”
Here the significance of Zamir’s warning against looting becomes clear: the issue is not only the theft of property in southern Lebanon or Gaza, but rather an indication of the collapse of the boundaries between the disciplined army and the unruly force.
On the other hand, Zamir said that the year 2026 may remain a “year of combat” on all fronts, and that the army will continue to remain in forward defense zones in Gaza, Syria and Lebanon until the long-term security of Israeli settlements is guaranteed.
This perception means that the environment that produced the “Army of Thieves” phenomenon is likely to continue, unless the Chief of Staff’s warnings are transformed into actual measures.
Together, the article and Zamir’s statements reveal that the Israeli army is not facing a passing discipline crisis, but rather an internal identity crisis.
When the Chief of Staff warns of looting, and two security researchers write that an army that abandons values turns into an “armed gang,” the question inside Israel becomes: Is the army still capable of controlling war, or has the long war begun to reshape it in the image of an exhausted, angry army that is capable of turning into an “army of thieves”?
