Refusal and hypocrisy

In general, he claims that there is an imbalance and hypocrisy in the treatment of different responses to protests and events in the country. He notes that in cases such as the base breach in Yemen, the response was harsh and biased, compared to the more gentle attitude towards protests against legal reform, which included roadblocks and calls for civil disobedience. He claims that there is an uneven policy towards different groups in the country, and there is a need for uniformity and honesty in handling events and protests, regardless of the identity of the participants or their political views.

In addition, he also notes the refusal among soldiers and officers who oppose legal reform. He criticizes the fact that this refusal is treated with forgiveness and even support in the media, while similar refusal by other elements would have been met with harsh condemnation and severe measures. He claims that the discriminatory treatment of refusers based on their political views shows hypocrisy and a lack of uniformity in handling cases of refusal and opposition to government policy.

This is a big deal, and it expands on every argument in the article.

I haven't checked and I don't have data and information. There are various differences between cases, so it's difficult to compare.

He compares the protest against the legal reform with the protest in Sde Yemen, noting that the protest against the reform involved extensive roadblocks and calls for civil disobedience that were not met with the same harsh response as the protest in Sde Yemen, which saw rapid arrests and a harsh response from the authorities. In addition, he criticizes the media and the system's leniency toward those who refused to participate in the protest against the reform, compared to those who refused to participate in the past who received severe punishments.
The fact is that there was refusal, a break-in at the Kohelet Institute, endless roadblocks, a blockade of the Ben Gurion Airport,
and in one word:
anarchy.
One could argue that it is legitimate, but then it is dangerous because it is done anywhere and everywhere and there is no equal treatment and everyone will do what they want.
So what is the difference?

You are repeating yourself. There is a big difference between a forceful attempt to prevent the activity of the enforcement authorities and a roadblock.
Regarding refusal, this is a question of discipline in the army and not a police question. Therefore, the comparison is irrelevant. Moreover, as far as I know, there was no refusal but non-volunteerism.
And of course there is a difference between a forceful attempt to protect criminals and a forceful attempt to demonstrate opinions.

What is the difference between breaking into an IDF base as a demonstration and a violent roadblock that can prevent ambulances from reaching a hospital as a protest?
Shouldn't the law apply to everyone equally?
And regarding the claim about the difference between refusal and non-volunteerism, he writes:
“This week I interviewed former Mossad Deputy Head Ram Ben Barak, a Yesh Atid member, who applauded the reservists who announced they would not report, while he also uses this embarrassing explanation, about the gap between “refusal” and ”non-volunteerism”.

So for the sake of Ben Barak and his fellow brothers-in-arms, let's clarify something simple. The IDF is not a program as you request. If you don't want to volunteer for a pilot course or for the reserves after age 40, you don't have to.

But from the moment you announced that you were coming, the IDF is counting on you. And when 10,000 reservists announce that they will not be called up for reserve duty – and these are the numbers that the Brothers in Arms have published – they are thereby declaring that they know that they are leaving units in the IDF with major deficiencies and that they are harming Israel’s security.

Call it “volunteering”, call it “chatter”, call it “messing around”, there is no value in these dictionary definitions. It’s not the expression that matters, it’s the essence that matters.

Imagine that Ram Ben Barak, formerly an officer in the Israeli Army's Special Operations Command, volunteered to serve in the reserves beyond the legal age, and was sent with his soldiers on a secret operation in Beirut, and halfway through the mission announced that he was going home and leaving them to continue without him, because he was just a volunteer and volunteers cannot be forced to volunteer.

Does that seem reasonable to you? Well, that's what he did, with the encouragement of politicians, generals, and journalists, and the masses of reservists who were activated by their brothers in arms. The IDF deployed them, the IDF trained them, the IDF built on them, and then, when they announced as one man that they would not come, their advocates in the media explained to us that they could not be approached with claims, because they had simply "stopped volunteering."

• Imagine if this entire group had persisted in their commitment not to enlist, and had not reported on October 7, arguing that they did not have to because it was only a “volunteer” service, and the IDF would have gone into battle with 10,000 fewer soldiers, two fewer aircraft squadrons, and 500 fewer doctors. Could anyone accept, when another 50 or 500 people were being slaughtered in the Gaza Envelope, the story of “We just didn’t volunteer”?

If you want to insist, insist.

I'm not insisting,
I'm just curious to know what you say about his claims about the refusals.