TEHRAN – The Israeli occupation regime's military is facing a severe manpower crisis that threatens its very collapse, amid a deep struggle over its identity and future.

In a striking paradox, a shortage of 12,000 soldiers threatens the collapse of the Israeli army, according to its chief of staff, while protests from 45 Religious Zionist institutes (hesder yeshivas) threaten the loss of thousands of elite soldiers.

The Israeli occupation forces (IOF) need everyone, yet the rabbis reject the deployment of women in tank crews. 

The chief of staff declares “no integration within teams,” but the real battle is not over the tank, it rages in the deeper question of the IOF’s identity.

The Chief of Staff, Eyal Zamir, has renewed an unprecedented warning to the political leadership, asserting that the IOF will “collapse” if mandatory service is not extended to 36 months. The warning came during a recent cabinet meeting, where he told ministers plainly: “I am raising twelve red flags, and the army will collapse upon itself.”

This repeated warning comes amid a severe manpower shortage. The IOF, by its own admission, suffers a deficit of more than 12,000 soldiers, including 7,500 combat troops. 

More urgently, mandatory service is expected to return to 30 months in January 2027, creating a gap equal to an entire recruitment cycle, roughly one missing company per battalion from that point onward.

From the IOF’s perspective, the coming weeks represent the final opportunity to amend the conscription law and extend service to 36 months before the dissolution of the Knesset and the move to elections, which would freeze legislation for an extended period. 

The bill passed its first reading in July 2024 and includes extending service for all enlistment cohorts, alongside financial incentives for longer service.

According to the Israeli regime’s military, extending compulsory service is intended to close the manpower gap and reduce repeated reliance on reserve forces, thereby easing pressure on both soldiers and the economy. Additional recommendations under consideration include shortening preparatory study periods in hesder yeshivas and extending the service of their students, who currently serve only one year and four months compared to their peers who serve significantly longer terms.

At the core of the crisis lies a contradiction between the army’s dire need for every available male and female combat soldier, given the acute shortage, and the rabbis’ rejection of mixed-gender service, which they see as incompatible with religious beliefs. 

The army needs female combat soldiers as much as it needs hesder students, who form an essential part of its command structure, especially in infantry and armored units.

The proposed solution involves creating fully separate frameworks: all-female tank crews alongside all-male tank crews, grouping female soldiers in an entirely distinct and closed unit. This could reduce friction points and allow both sides to continue serving.

But while the chief of staff warns of the IOF’s collapse due to manpower shortages and ongoing exhaustion, street protests by rabbis and students from Zionist yeshivas are escalating against the army’s plan to integrate women into tank crews alongside men in the armored corps. This places the IOF in a double bind.

The union of elite hesder yeshivas, comprising some 45 prominent institutions, has announced a complete halt to sending their students to serve in the armored corps, in protest of efforts to integrate male and female soldiers, similar to earlier disputes in the artillery corps. This decision came despite the chief of staff’s letter aiming to ease tensions, which was dismissed as an “attempt to sedate the rabbis.”

A senior official from these military academies stated that the chief of staff recognizes the scope of the problem but avoids confronting the Supreme Court and advocacy groups pushing for female integration in armored units. He warned that continuing this approach could push hundreds or even thousands of religious Zionist recruits, who form a key pillar of the armored corps, to avoid these units and shift elsewhere.

The move coincided with more than 30 heads of hesder institutions signing a letter urging students not to serve in armored units.

This move coincided with over 30 heads of Hesder yeshivas signing a letter urging students to refrain from armored service. Other preparatory academy leaders also urged service in units without direct interaction with female soldiers.

Analysts note that the stance of 25 hesder heads, about one-third of such institutions in the Israeli regime, is not a routine religious dispute, but a strategic manpower development with significant implications, raising serious questions about one of the IOF’s most important sources of elite combat personnel.

Data shows the crisis stems from two clashing trends: on one hand, the rise of female combat soldiers, now numbering around 8,500 in the IOF, with increasing enlistment among religious women from the religious Zionist sector. On the other hand, the growing dominance of the religious Zionist stream as a backbone of military leadership, with clear demands for separation and modesty within the IOF.

A Hebrew military commentator said the chief of staff emphasized during the pilot program discussion that success would be measured by two criteria: professional effectiveness under operational standards without compromise, and establishing a functional combat framework for full training. 

Eyal Zamir clarified that there would be no mixed male-female tank crews, but rather separate platoons at a minimum, with adjustments to joint service regulations.

However, analysts argue the dispute is deeper than it appears. Behind the tank debate lies a struggle over power and identity: who will define the future character of the IOF? As religious Zionist influence grows within combat units, rabbis gain increasing ability to shape the military agenda. Some senior officers fear the IOF may be forced repeatedly into segregating competing “sectoral” demands instead of operating under a unified framework.

The larger question, according to military commentators, remains how the IOF can balance its diverse internal groups while maintaining decisions based on a shared vision rather than one faction imposing its values on another. The real battle, as commentators conclude, is not about tanks, but about who will define the identity of the IOF in the years ahead.