Basically, he argues that there is imbalance and hypocrisy in the way different reactions to protests and events in the country are treated. He notes that in cases like the break-in at the base in Sde Teiman, the response was harsh and biased, compared to the more gentle treatment of the protests against the judicial reform, which included road blockages and calls for civil disobedience. According to him, there is an inconsistent policy toward different groups in the country, and there needs to be consistency and honesty in handling events and protests, regardless of the identity of the participants or their political views.

In addition, he also mentions refusal among soldiers and officers who oppose the judicial reform. He criticizes the fact that this refusal receives lenient treatment and even support in the media, whereas similar refusal by other groups would have been met with sharp condemnation and severe measures. According to him, the discriminatory treatment of refusers based on their political views shows hypocrisy and inconsistency in dealing with cases of refusal and opposition to government policy.

That’s the gist of it, and he expands on each argument in the article.

I haven’t checked, and I don’t have the data or information. There are various differences between the cases, so it’s hard to compare.

He compares the protest against the judicial reform to the protest at Sde Teiman, and notes that during the protest against the reform there were widespread road blockages and calls for civil disobedience that did not meet the same harsh response as the protest at Sde Teiman, where there were quick arrests and a forceful response by the authorities. In addition, he criticizes the leniency of the media and the system toward the refusers in the protest against the reform, as opposed to refusers in the past who received severe punishments.
The fact is that there was refusal, a break-in at the Kohelet Forum, endless road blockages, the blocking of Ben-Gurion Airport,
and in one word:
Anarchy.
You can argue that it’s legitimate, but then that’s dangerous because people are applying a double standard and there’s no equal treatment, and everyone will do whatever they want.
So what’s the difference?

You’re repeating yourself. There is a big difference between a forceful attempt to prevent law-enforcement authorities from acting and blocking a road.
As for refusal, that is a question of discipline in the army, not a policing issue. Therefore the comparison is irrelevant. Besides, as far as I know there was no refusal, only non-volunteering.
And of course there is a difference between a forceful attempt to protect criminals and a forceful attempt to demonstrate for one’s views.

What is the difference between breaking into an IDF base as a demonstration and violently blocking roads in a way that can also prevent ambulances from reaching a hospital as a form of protest?
Shouldn’t the law apply equally to everyone?
And regarding the claim about the difference between refusal and non-volunteering, this is what he writes:
“This week I interviewed former deputy head of the Mossad Ram Ben-Barak, a Yesh Atid man, who applauded the reservists who announced that they would not report for duty, while he too used this embarrassing explanation about the gap between ‘refusal’ and ‘non-volunteering.’

So for Ben-Barak and his friends from Brothers in Arms, let’s make something simple clear. The IDF is not a pick-and-choose program. If you don’t want to volunteer for a pilot’s course or for reserve duty after age 40, you don’t have to.

But from the moment you said you were coming, the IDF counts on you. And when 10,000 reservists declare that they will not come to reserve duty—and those are the numbers published by the people from Brothers in Arms—they are thereby declaring that they know they are leaving IDF units with major shortages and harming Israel’s security.

Call it ‘volunteering,’ call it ‘nonsense,’ call it ‘messing around’—these dictionary definitions have no value whatsoever. The term doesn’t matter; the substance matters.

Imagine that Ram Ben-Barak, in his past as an officer in the General Staff Reconnaissance Unit, had volunteered to serve in reserves beyond the age required by law, and had been sent with his soldiers on a secret operation in Beirut, and in the middle of the way announced that he was going home and leaving them to continue without him, because after all he’s just a volunteer and you can’t force volunteers to volunteer.

Does that sound reasonable to you? Well, that is what masses of reservists activated by Brothers in Arms did, with his encouragement and the encouragement of politicians and generals and journalists. The IDF assigned them, the IDF trained them, the IDF counted on them, and then, when they announced as one man that they would not come, their defenders in the media explained to us that you can’t make claims against them, because they merely ‘stopped volunteering.’

• Imagine that this whole group had persisted in its commitment not to enlist and had not reported on October 7, on the grounds that they weren’t obligated because it was only ‘volunteering,’ and the IDF had gone into battle with 10,000 fewer soldiers and two fewer air squadrons and 500 fewer doctors. Could anyone have accepted the story of ‘we just didn’t volunteer,’ when another 50 people or 500 people would have been slaughtered in the Gaza border region?”

If you want to insist, then insist.

I’m not insisting,
I’m just interested in knowing what you say about his claims regarding refusal.