On Tuesday, the IDF began inducting members of its new class of conscripts, who, unlike their predecessors, can expect to serve for 30 rather than 32 months. The cut is the second phase of a 2015 measure that reduced service from a full three years; however, the Knesset has effectively given itself a year to reinstate the 32-month term. Yoav Limor argues that it should avail itself of this option:

The Finance Ministry pushed for the decision [to shorten military service] because it wanted to bring young workers into the job market, which would lead to faster growth and boost the nation’s GDP. . . . Prior to the coronavirus crisis, when unemployment was negative and there was a lack of workers, [that decision] made sense, especially when the IDF itself admitted that it didn’t need every soldier to spend a full three years in mandatory service. . . . Now, with over a million unemployed, it’s not certain that the Treasury will want to see soldiers discharged two months earlier than planned because, rather than helping generate money, they will need to be paid unemployment benefits.

The current chief of staff, Aviv Kochavi, thinks differently. His objection to another cut to compulsory service mainly has to do with the shortage of combat troops (Kochavi believes that combat units should be overstaffed to 108 percent, to allow for a surplus during wartime), but he has other reasons, too, . . . including the concern that reservists will have to be called up to cover the shortage of troops and concern about the military’s day-to-day functioning.

As for the argument that the new arrangement will help keep the military’s expenses under control, Limor is likewise unconvinced:

The IDF [itself] sees the financial aspect as minor compared to these issues. Soldiers on compulsory service are already “cheap” in terms of what they are paid, and do not comprise an undue burden on the military’s budget.

It’s [most] likely that a decision will be made [by the government] to freeze things temporarily [as they are], which would require agreements with the Treasury at an especially difficult time for the economy. It’s a shame, because for every possible reason—security, economics, values—it is time that Israel decides what it wants from its military and from those who serve in it, and what it is willing to do to make it happen.

Two extraordinary events demonstrate something important about Israel’s most fervent adversaries. One was a speech given at something called The People’s Forum (funded generously by Goldman Sachs), which stated, “When the state of Israel is finally destroyed and erased from history, that will be the single most important blow we can give to destroying capitalism and imperialism.”

The suggestion that this tiny state is the linchpin of a global, centuries-old phenomenon like capitalism goes well beyond anything resembling rational criticism. Even if Israel were guilty of genocide, apartheid, and oppression—which of course it is not—it would not follow that its destruction would help end capitalism or imperialism.

The other was an anti-Israel protest that took place in front of New York City’s Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, deemed “complicit” in Israel’s evils. At organizers’ urging, participants shouted their slogans at kids in the cancer ward, who were watching from the windows. Given Hamas’s indifference toward the lives of Gazan children, such callousness toward non-Palestinian children from Hamas’s Western allies shouldn’t be surprising. The protest—like the abovementioned speech—deliberately conveyed the message that Israel is the ultimate evil and its destruction the ultimate good, cancer patients be damned.

The fact that Israel’s adversaries are almost comically perverse does not mean that they can be dismissed. If its allies fail to understand the obsessive and irrational hatred that it faces, they cannot effectively help it defend itself.