The Israel-Hamas War is not only a military campaign of unprecedented scale; it is a defining moment for Israeli society and its moral foundations.
While the battlefield has revealed extraordinary courage, solidarity, and sacrifice, the aftermath of the war is exposing a quieter but no less serious challenge: how the State of Israel recognizes fighters who paid a heavy price for combat, yet do not fit neatly into existing bureaucratic definitions of wounded soldiers or fallen members of the security forces.
Israel’s recognition system for IDF casualties is built on legal criteria and administrative frameworks developed over decades. These rules were designed to ensure consistency, fairness, and clarity. However, the current war – with its prolonged reserve duty, repeated deployments, and extreme psychological burden – has created realities that these frameworks were never designed to address.
Since the outbreak of the war in 2023, there has been a disturbing rise in psychological distress among combat soldiers, both active-duty and reservists. Many returned home after months of fighting, only to discover that the war had not truly ended.
Psychological injuries often do not erupt at a single identifiable moment, nor do they always manifest during active service. Instead, they emerge gradually, once the uniform is removed and the soldier is left alone with the memories of combat.
The gap between service and recognition
The case of Josh (Yehoshua) Boone painfully illustrates this gap. Boone was a lone soldier, a combat fighter, and commander, who served more than 700 days of reserve duty across multiple combat units, including Golani, Paratroopers, and Alexandroni. He took an active part in combat and operational missions, and continued to contribute far beyond the battlefield, mentoring and preparing hundreds of young people – many of them also lone soldiers – for meaningful service in the IDF.
Yet the circumstances of his death do not align comfortably with existing recognition categories.
This forces Israeli society to confront a fundamental question: Do rigid adherence to outdated criteria still reflect the values they were meant to serve?
Common sense and moral responsibility demand recognition that psychological injuries caused directly by combat are no less real than physical wounds. When soldiers are repeatedly sent into life-threatening situations and exposed to trauma, the state’s responsibility toward them does not end when they return home.
The Defense Ministry, and in particular its Rehabilitation Department, plays a critical role in this moral test. The department is now facing an unprecedented wave of complex cases involving combat-related psychological trauma. It must adapt its assessment and recognition mechanisms to the realities of modern warfare. Bureaucratic timelines and narrow definitions cannot override the obligation to provide timely, compassionate, and comprehensive responses to those harmed in the service of the state.
Recognition is not merely a question of compensation or legal classification. It is a statement of national values. It determines whether Israel truly stands behind those it sent to defend it, even when the price they paid is invisible and difficult to quantify. This is especially true when recognition affects burial rights, commemoration, and the dignity afforded to fallen fighters and their families.
The Israel-Hamas War demands moral courage no less than military courage. It requires Israeli leadership to reassess the boundaries of recognition – not to erase them, but to ensure they do not become barriers separating the state from its fighters. Failing this test risks sending a devastating message to those currently fighting, and to those who will be called upon to fight in the future.
If Israel is to remain faithful to its foundational ethos – that it does not abandon its soldiers – it must be willing to update its systems to reflect the full cost of war. That includes acknowledging psychological wounds as real battlefield injuries, and ensuring that those who bore them are treated with the honor, responsibility, and humanity they deserve.
The writer, a brigadier-general (res.), is the chairman and founder of the Habithonistim movement.