They are not willing to volunteer for training days beyond the legally required reserve duty.
I don't think, in general, there is any problem with stopping volunteering for the state when it is heading toward collapse and destruction.

But according to this, you can never judge a refuser on his own terms, because we would always have to assume that from his point of view the motive for refusal is to prevent dictatorship. These days you can connect almost anything to dictatorship or to a slippery slope that will lead to it.

That itself is a slippery-slope argument. Of course you can judge. The judge has to be convinced of the sincerity of the defendant's analysis and decide his case accordingly. Arguments that are obviously made up will not be accepted. Beyond that, sometimes people refuse and are judged. That is what is called conscientious refusal. And still, in certain situations it is legitimate to refuse and accept punishment.

Israeli law allows calling up a citizen for a maximum of 82 reserve-duty days every 3 years (an average of 27 days a year).
Pilots do 60-80 reserve-duty days a year

Put those two facts together and it turns out that a pilot who did 60 reserve-duty days in 2021 and another 60 reserve-duty days in 2022 would not have to report for reserve duty at all during all of 2023, even under the strictest legal standard.

Every pilot who shows up for reserve duty has to sign a volunteer form, otherwise he cannot be called up.

The pilots say they can stop signing up as volunteers and make do with 27 reserve-duty days a year.
Another issue is the exemption age for reserve duty, since pilots keep flying for several years after passing the retirement age.
How on earth can you call a 50-year-old fighter pilot who did 120 reserve-duty days in the previous two years a draft-dodger????

Here I have to disagree.
First, there were various kinds of refusers and refusals, including some who are not volunteers.
Beyond that, a pilot who goes to flight school knows that he will be required to do many reserve-duty days, beyond what is required of an ordinary soldier. He has to do refreshers once a week, and that is already fifty reserve-duty days, even before the military missions themselves. This is part of the deal of flight school (where they invest a great deal of money in you and also give you useful and enjoyable training). It is also part of the structure of the IDF, and the Air Force assumes it can rely on this “volunteering.” Therefore there is here what lawyers call “reliance.” If you promise to give me a gift and I counted on it and in the end you do not keep your promise, I have grounds to raise claims against you. Even though you were not obligated to give it to me, once you promised I relied on it. That is exactly the meaning of signing a volunteer form. It shows that this is not really volunteering. Someone who received flight school, caused us to rely on him, and now is not “volunteering,” is doing something very problematic.
As for the expression “draft-dodgers,” that is already a matter of taste and tactics, but on the substantive issue what you wrote is really not accurate.
But even if there is something problematic here, there is room to discuss whether there is justification for doing it in extreme circumstances. Here there are definitely arguments both ways, and that is what I wrote above. But you commented on the very problematic nature of the act itself, and here you presented a very inaccurate picture.

All the cases of “refusal” that were reported were “refusals” to volunteer beyond the legal maximum framework (which ranges between 52-82 days every 3 years depending on the role and rank).

There were pilots and members of special units who also have an astronomical number of reserve-duty days.

There is an explicit contract that every pilot has to sign, so there is no point discussing a theoretical contract that we are inventing.

A pilot who goes to flight school has to sign on for 8 years of regular service, so altogether he will serve 11 years.
After he has completed his regular-service commitment, he can do whatever he wants, including transferring to another role in the army.

If the Air Force wants an additional commitment of 60-80 reserve-duty days, it needs to put that into the contract and not add conditions years after flight school.

By the way, among members of special units there is no especially expensive training, and still people who had never served a single reserve-duty day in their lives called them draft-dodgers when they announced they would stop signing volunteer forms.

Yesterday I saw an interview with Gafni claiming that the pilots should take an example from the Haredim, who never made demands (political ones) in order to enlist…

I hereby make clear that this question is not meant provocatively, and I align myself with the true pilots of our generation, holy riders of the skies who dwell in the heavens forever:
I assume that the pilots (and I as well) think they are a decisive factor in war, and I assume they (and I as well) think there will be no democracy if we are defeated in war because of their absence.
Practically speaking, even though there is concern about the loss of democracy and in principle the refusal is justified, given a choice between a dictatorship of Bibism and a dictatorship of Islamism, isn't the former preferable? Is it really possible that at the moment of truth they would refuse, or maybe this is just “hold me back” posturing?
///////////////////And is there any fundamental difference between the pilots' protest and a hypothetical “protest of military doctors” who would say: we are not willing to serve in order to prevent a dictatorship?

This is too simplistic a question. It is not true that they refused to take part in war. It is not true that even if they had refused we would have lost. Therefore this whole discussion is unfounded.
I did not understand the question about a difference between refusals.