An opinion poll was conducted during the "Israel" Democracy Institute conference to find out the public's attitudes towards the Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF).

The poll examined the public's attitude towards the method of conscription in the IOF and stated the following question: "Does the Israeli public support compulsory conscription or volunteering for professional military service?"

Gershon Hacohen, a general and the head of the Israeli security movement, commented on this event in an article he published on the Israeli Channel 12 website saying, “The question was raised as if there was a practical possibility to convert the Israeli army from compulsory conscription to recruiting paid volunteers, as is the case in the United States Army."

Hacohen added that “most of those questioned do not have the knowledge to answer the question in its full dimensions, so it was better before asking the question to make sure one knows the basic conditions for "Israel’s" security. In that case, the question should have been, "Is it possible, under the current circumstances, to have one option for enrolling in the army in Israel?"

He pointed out that "the Israeli Air Force, for example, in the way it operates, is the closest to the image of a professional army."

Hacohen explained that a quick look is enough to understand the complexity of the picture, explaining that the average Israeli citizen does not know the basic requirements to operate the Israeli Air Force weapon.

He added that about half of the pilots in each squadron are reservists, and ground crews are mostly recruited from compulsory service.

Hacohen stated that in terms of the size of the army, the European countries cannot be a model for the IOF, as their armies are small, and their activation depends on the NATO alliance.

He added, "The United States, on the other hand, has a large-scale army, which is the second-largest in the world after China," arguing that it is an army of wage earners that are recruited from a nation of more than 350 million citizens; yet, they find it difficult to fill the formations with the desired quantity and quality.”

Where is "Israel" now?

Hacohen explained that "Israel's" feeling of security is "largely based on pushing away the threat of war with the armies of Arab countries." 

However, he added, "New threats have emerged and the change that has occurred requires the Israeli army to respond once again to the concept of existential threat."

He considered that "those who think that Hezbollah and Hamas are nothing more than terrorist organizations and that their threat, with all its danger, does not amount to an existential threat, are mistaken. For this reason, the Chief of Staff is keen to call them terrorists."

Hacohen believes that the IOF's response to these new threats is more complex and also many times more expensive than in the past, adding that if "Israel" recruits only those who choose military service as a profession, it will be within the framework of an army of wage earners and will not be able to have more than two to three brigades enlisted on the ground.

In his opinion: "The Second Lebanon War (the 2006 July war) was probably the last time "Israel" was going to be able to focus on fighting on a single front. The next war may well be a regional war."

Hacohen explained, "This strategic shift will require a significant increase in the order of the [military] forces and preparation of the Israeli public for the kind of war it has not seen since the War of Independence," in reference to the establishment of "Israel", which took place over the dead bodies of Palestinians in what was subsequently known as the Nakba. 

Hacohen concluded his article by saying that the IOF's position on the issue is categorical: "In the coming decades, 'Israel' will not have the possibility to base its security on another method of recruitment, and this is not just a question of budgets."