Would you like to reprint this translation on your platform? Please make sure to read our How to Use and Distribute page first

Not in their name – a new chapter in the anti-war struggle

We spoke with those protesting the abandonment of the hostages and those refusing to serve in the army during the war, on their hopes for change. “Carrying on fighting and destroying – I just can’t understand this”.

By Dr Shany Payes

Editor Maayan Galili

Translation by Avi Bram

Date of original publication: 6/4/2025

Original Hebrew text: https://www.rosamedia.org/episodes/articles/72

Nearly a month ago, on the night between Monday 17th and Tuesday 18th March, Israel blew up the ceasefire in Gaza. That night’s attack killed 436 people, including 183 children, 94 women, and 34 adults over the age of 65. The resumption of fighting is a horrifying development for the families of the hostages, who have lost hope in the Israeli government and American pressure [on Hamas to release the hostages], and in the public there is increasing understanding that only effective protest can bring about a halt to the war with a deal that will also return of the hostages home. Indeed, the public protest is rising in intensity. Stav Salomon, a reserve officer who has refused to continue serving in the war in Gaza, told us about the black flag flying over the war [see comment below], and the support he is receiving following his decision. Alongside the refusals [to serve], the demonstrations are also continuing steadily. What can we learn from the activists about the state of the protest and the chances of success?

The public opposes the war

The renewal of the war in Gaza serves the Netanyahu government, its policy of perpetual war, and its narrow interests in surviving in power and diverting attention from their corruption scandals. Nevertheless, the majority of the public consistently believes that the renewal of the war in Gaza is contrary to Israeli interests.

In a survey by aChord Center, conducted in two parts in January and February of this year [2025], among 550 respondents, it emerged that the majority of the public (68%) believes that ending the war in Gaza with an agreement, which includes the release of all the hostages, serves the interests of the State of Israel. 78% of those who expressed an opinion expressed support for completing the second stage of the deal to release the hostages in full [see comment below], including a full withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Gaza Strip and a cessation of fighting.

aChord CEO Ron Gerlitz explains the data: “We see that there is very, very broad public support for the hostage deal, including for the second stage. There was a consistent and dramatic increase in the last two months. Among the liberal-democratic camp [a very broad coalition of the opposition political parties rejecting Netanyahu’s leadership], there is a consensus for the return of the hostages and an end to the war. Among those who voted for the ruling coalition, 38% are in favour of a cessation of hostilities [probably a typo, see comment below] and 38% are against. Most of the opponents [to the ceasefire] among the coalition supporters are voters for the extreme right-wing parties, [Otzma Yehudit and HaTzionut HaDatit, led by Itamar] Ben Gvir and [Bezalel] Smotrich. This means that in Netanyahu’s party, the Likud, the majority want the war to end. Netanyahu’s polls certainly show him this. The [continuation of] war is a move that’s opposed by the majority of the public and the majority of his voters.”

Did the survey results surprise you?

Gerlitz: “They are not surprising in light of the increased public discourse in the last two months, from commentators, politicians and opinion leaders, against the war and in favour of completing the hostage deal. What is somewhat surprising is that the public believes that the deal will harm the country’s security and yet still supports it overwhelmingly. This is a very, very unusual situation in Israel in general, and certainly during this period, because security is the main motivation for the majority of the Israeli public, and it is surprising that they support a move that they perceive as harming security. The explanation for this is concern for the hostages. There may be another explanation: people don’t trust this government, [and don’t trust its ability to] continue the war.”

From an aChord survey. Caption says “most of the public (68%) believes that ending the war in Gaza with an agreement, that includes releasing the hostages, serves the interests of the State of Israel”.

Support for the deal is felt on the ground

Yael Navon and Roni Reiner, activists for the release of the hostages, are directly feeling the recent increase in support for the hostage deal and ending the war. Navon and Reiner are active in the struggle in various ways, and one of the actions they lead is a regular demonstration every morning, between 8:00 and 9:00, at the Milano Square intersection in Tel Aviv, which is gaining momentum. “It took me a while to recognise that abandoning the hostages is government policy and that undermining the [hostage] deal is intentional, but with the collapse of the May 2024 deal [see comment below], there was no room for doubt. At first, we were just three activists standing at the intersection. My immediate social circle laughed at me, thinking [the protest] is meaningless, and at the intersection there were various reactions, some of them very unpleasant. There were angry reactions, statements like ‘Bibi guilty, again?’ and ‘How much money are you getting paid [for protesting]?’ and also more subtle opposition, such as requests from neighbours to stop disturbing them. However, slowly the core of the protesters grew, and more and more protesters joined in, coming when they could. There has been a demonstration at the intersection every morning for eight months now, and we feel how the circles are widening. The spontaneous support – from beeping car horns in support to [people] joining the demonstration – is expanding, and the direct opposition to us is decreasing.”

Reiner: “It’s not easy to be committed to protesting. We are mothers and fathers and working people, and many difficult things are happening at once now, things that would automatically send me out onto the streets [to protest]. However, I feel that the commitment to saving lives [of the hostages] is above all else. Almost everything is reversible, even laws and the judicial overhaul can be changed, but a life that you didn’t save is lost forever.”

Doesn’t the return to fighting leave you reeling?

“The announcement of the return to fighting, as expected as it was, caught me off guard. I felt as if someone had punched me in the stomach,” says Roni Reiner, a documentary filmmaker and mother, one of the leaders of the demonstration. “It was early in the morning and I couldn’t stop crying. I thought about the mothers whose children are being held in the most horrific conditions, now also knowing what [tortures] they went through [see comment below], the feeling is certainly harder. And of course the stories of the survivors of captivity, who told us what they went through every time negotiations failed. I look with amazement at what is happening in the political sphere, at the scenes on the news, as if the 7th October didn’t happen, as if there aren’t 59 kidnapped people being left in captivity. It must not be normalised - it just can’t be. I carry with me the words of Yocheved Lifshitz [who was kidnapped and released on 23rd October 2023], the heroine who stood at the grave of her abandoned husband [Oded Lifshitz, who was kidnapped and whose body was returned on February 2025] and said, ‘I have no despair.’ She is my inspiration. Every morning at the intersection I think about her words: I have no despair.”

Navon: “There is no doubt that the situation is discouraging. The feeling is that the house is falling apart in so many ways, but without the [returning of the hostages] the house is gone [see comment below]. This is not a cliché. It is hard to say that it is not despairing, but we do not have the right to give up. On the contrary. The less obvious it is that returning the hostages is the highest priority [for the government], the greater our duty to stand. The thought of our corner going empty, without their pictures and without us calling their names, while they are still there, is chilling. As long as we can, we will stand. The worse it gets, the more they need us, their families need us more, and the street needs us more too.

“I think we all need a reminder of the costs of politics, of the lack of compassion. We all need a reminder that this cause is humane and shared by the vast majority [of Israelis], and we all need a reminder that there is compassion and humanity left to wake up to in the morning. We are not powerless yet. We have the power to choose who we will be. And we have the power to speak, to rise up, to pursue justice.”

Dov Hanin: “The protest has proven itself and can win”

Dov Hanin, an experienced activist and a member of the leadership of the “Standing Together” movement that is part of the leadership of the protest against the war and for the release of the hostages, reinforces the demonstrators’ sense of confidence. “I suggest to those who think that the struggle has failed to look at Israeli public opinion. The data shows that even within Netanyahu’s base there is very significant support for ending the war in exchange for the hostages. Netanyahu is addicted to polls and therefore is aware of this.”

According to Hanin, “We need to understand the basic, familiar political reality. Netanyahu is not interested in a hostage deal, for all sorts of reasons. First, for a political and ideological reason. He wants to end the war with a very strong and convincing image of victory, and for him this image of victory would come from the destruction of Gaza and the feeling that Israel won the war. The hostage deal, in its profound sense, means stopping and perhaps ending the war. And the second reason is [to satisfy his] coalition. There are two components in his coalition, Smotrich and Ben Gvir, who made it clear that they would withdraw from the coalition if the war stops.

“So, Netanyahu is not interested in a deal. The international elements were very ineffective and weak. The Biden administration gave Netanyahu the green light to do everything, voiced criticism but did not actually put the brakes on [him]. Trump - a less weak and less ineffective administration, but Trump is also willing to give Netanyahu the green light to do as he pleases in Gaza. He said this, more than once or twice.

“I would argue that it is internal pressure in Israeli society that led to the [previous] deals so far. A [hostage] deal has a majority in the Israeli public, including [the element of] ending the war. Ultimately, public pressure is something that works. It works even if it does not directly influence the majority [vote] in the Knesset. We are all part of the same society. This morning I saw news that even Itzik Zarka [see comment below] stood in the Hostages Square and said that he would be there all the time, that he supports a deal that will bring [all the hostages] back. The pressure is reaching Netanyahu’s base. People there are also attentive to the great pain and concern, and Netanyahu is very sensitive to his base. In other words, the same considerations that cause Netanyahu to oppose the deal, from the same context, [he was] pressured to reach a deal, even if partial and temporary. Just as the opposition [to the deal] is intended to preserve [Netanyahu’s] base, the coalition [and Netanyahu’s] political power, the willingness to go for partial deals is also intended as manoeuvres that will preserve [Netanyahu’s] political power. Continuing the struggle [to reach a deal] requires perseverance. Whoever has the longest breath succeeds in the end. The attrition is happening on the side of the protesters who take up positions week after week, but there is also attrition on the other side, the resistance [to a deal].”

From resistance to refusal: a black flag is flying

Stav Salomon interviewed on Channel 13. The headline says “have the reservists stopped coming?”

The clearest sign of the widespread public opposition to the war is the shift from demonstrations to active refusal to serve. Reserve officers and commanders report a 30% drop in those reporting for duty since the war resumed last month.

Stav Salomon, a 26-year-old student from Haifa, is one of the new refuseniks. Salomon served in the army for seven years and was discharged in July 2024, so he started the war while serving in active duty. For nine months of war, Salomon was a battalion officer in an armoured battalion, and then an operations officer in a brigade. “I participated in literally every manoeuvre. My brigade was at the forefront in Shifa, Khan Yunis, Jabaliya, hostage-freeing operations, literally everywhere. I was discharged in July and since then I’ve had the dilemma about what I’ll do when they call me back. It’s partly burnout, the damage to relationships and the desire to live a normal life for a 26-year-old. And also what’s happening there [in Gaza] - the use of human shields, the indiscriminate destruction of infrastructure.

“At first, refusal was out of the question. When the second deal was implemented and we saw the hostages starting to return and Hamas’s demonstrations of strength, the air came out of our lungs. All the shit I went through was for nothing. If you sign an agreement, then great, that’s what I came for. But sometime as early as December 23, in Khan Yunis, I realised that the IDF is generating military pressure [on Hamas] and meeting its goals and no political move was happening, which is the other side of the contract. A military move is being made so that the leaders will make peace. The despair and frustration grew as I realised that Hamas was still present and no one was doing anything to flush it out. The hostages are returning in a terrible state and Ben Gvir continues to talk his bullshit - that we will go back to fighting, that the deal is reckless and that this is a time of miracles.

“I decided that I cannot remain silent and I must be active. It is not enough to demonstrate, we need to exert as much pressure as possible to show that the people are pushing for this. I signed the letter of refusal, I thought a lot about whether to sign it with my initials or my full name. I thought it was more meaningful to do it with my full name. Since then, the deal has been terminated, and the protests have flared up again. I feel obligated to do everything I can to put more pressure on the government and show it that it has no legitimacy to return to manoeuvring [i.e. fighting] and continue [abandoning] the hostages. This is also my obligation to Nimrod Cohen, who is still hostage, and who was my commanding officer. And he will seemingly be the last to remain there [see comment below]. Until we reach a full agreement, he will remain captive, and therefore a limited deal for a few hostages is not enough for me.”

What reactions do you get?

“I was interviewed by the [channel 13] news and it was not really planned, I did not plan to be exposed to that extent, but I felt that it was required and an opportunity that I had to accept in order to be faithful to what I believe in. I’m very exposed and the reactions range from positive to indifferent. I almost do not receive statements that I am a traitor or scum, compared to very broad responses of support, and also a lot of indifference. People from the army, friends, are silent, even though I’m sure they saw it. They choose not to respond. No one from my close circle objected. Maybe once I came across someone who swore at me. It’s surprising and encouraging, strengthening and giving a sense of a just cause. It seems that something in Israeli society is moving.

“What’s happening in Gaza is a very significant element in the decision to refuse. I refuse to serve in Gaza, because the situation there is a precedent. The policy that the government is promoting is blatantly illegal - everything we learned about a ‘black flag’ policy, that’s what’s happening in Gaza in my opinion, and the fact that it’s under the auspices of the law is confusing.

“We were educated to shoot and cry, about [holding] a weapon in one hand and stretching out the other for peace [see comment below]. It’s funny to talk about things like that compared to what’s happening in Gaza. It’s so distant, and naïve, compared to the situation now. In my opinion, it’s a certain rupture in the code of conduct of the IDF and its duties, and we must raise a voice of opposition. It’s clear that it’s breaking up the army and setting a dangerous precedent, it’s not just a disagreement or a single illegal order, its waving an illegal black flag. To carry on fighting when we’ve already killed and destroyed so much – I don’t know what that could possibly achieve or do for us. The destruction [of Gaza] is total. When we went into Shijayah the third time we didn’t even find a house to use as defensive position – everything was already destroyed. And the hostages are the epitome of this whole thing, it’s obvious that military pressure isn’t getting them back.”

Translation notes:

‘Black flag’ is a phrase denoting a “blatantly illegal order” which any individual – and specifically any soldier, regardless of rank – must refuse. The term was coined by the Israeli Supreme Court during the sentencing of the soldiers involved in the Kafr Qasim massacre in 1957.
Israel and Hamas signed a ceasefire and hostages-and-prisoners exchange agreement that came into effect on 19 January. The proposal consisted of three sequential stages, beginning with a six-week ceasefire and the release of most Israeli hostages in exchange for Palestinian prisoners. The second stage, which was agreed upon, entailed a full withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Gaza Strip and the release of the remaining Israeli hostages, while the third stage was intended to address the reconstruction of Gaza. In practice, Israel violated the agreement following the completion of the first stage and failed to implement the second and third stages.
The chart above shows that voters of the ruling coalition (highlighted in the yellow box) responded to the question: “To what extent do you believe that ending the war in Gaza through an agreement that includes the release of all Israeli hostages serves the interests of the State of Israel?” In January, 38% answered “Certainly No” or “No” (1 or 2), while 20% responded “Yes” or “Certainly Yes” (5 or 6). In the February survey, 41% responded “Certainly No” or “No”, and 21% answered “Yes” or “Certainly Yes”. The reference in the text to 38% of the ruling coalition’s voters favouring a cessation of hostilities is not supported by this chart and is likely a typographical error. The reference to 38% supporting continuation of the war aligns with the data presented in the January survey.
The ‘May 2024 deal’ refers to a ceasefire proposal put forward in May 2024, which contained largely the same terms as the agreement signed in January 2025. The Israeli government’s rejection of the May 2024 proposal was controversial among the Israeli public.
The hostages who were returned during the first stage of the 2025 ceasefire agreement reported being held together with some of those who remained in captivity. They gave detailed accounts of various forms of torture and intentional harm inflicted upon themselves and the other hostages during their detention.
‘The house is destroyed’ is a metaphor for the destruction of the State of Israel. It alludes to the biblical fall of the First and Second Temples in Jerusalem, which signified the end of Jewish autonomous rule in the land of Israel.
Itzik Zarka is a Likud party activist who led counter-protests against the anti-government protest movement prior to the outbreak of the war, and later led demonstrations opposing any hostage deal once the war had begun. He became notorious after shouting at anti-government protesters: “Ashkenazim… burn in hell!… I’m proud that six million were burnt…”
In previous hostage release agreements, a humanitarian criterion was applied to determine the order of release. The first to be released were the frail elderly and children, followed by civilian women, then female service members, and finally men of service age (whether actively serving or not). All the remaining living hostages still held by Hamas as of the end of the last deal are men between the ages of 18 and 46.
“Shooting and crying” is a widely used expression in Israel that conveys a sense of retrospective remorse experienced by soldiers over their actions during their service, particularly in times of war. “Holding a gun in one hand and stretching out the other for peace” is another expression used metaphorically to describe Israel’s security policy, maintaining a strong and capable military while the political leadership professes a desire to pursue peace.

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse