Ben-Gvir plans to change IDF ethics code, emphasize 'Jewish values,' if named defense minister

“The Spirit of the IDF” is the military’s code of ethics. It sets out the IDF’s purpose, values, duties, and expected conduct. It matters because soldiers make rapid decisions under pressure. A shared code gives them standards for using force, treating people, and representing the state.

The existing framework includes “Purity of Arms,” limits force to what is necessary, and explicitly protects non-combatants and prisoners of war. It also refers to universal moral values. These rules help connect military effectiveness with discipline, responsibility, and human dignity.

Ben-Gvir’s proposal would replace the current framework with one stressing Jewish identity, victory, and defeating Israel’s enemies. It would still mention human dignity and legal authority, but would remove several specific safeguards. The change is therefore more than a wording adjustment. It could influence training, orders, command decisions, and how soldiers understand lawful conduct.

Ben-Gvir’s proposal would redefine the IDF’s main objective as achieving victory and decisively defeating Israel’s enemies and the Jewish people’s enemies. It would place greater weight on Jewish moral values from the Bible, Jewish ethics, Jewish law, and Jewish tradition. It would also describe Israel as the Jewish people’s national home and the IDF as a Jewish, state-run army.

The clearest operational change concerns force. “Purity of Arms” would become “Righteousness of Arms.” The draft would add the principle, “If someone comes to kill you, rise early and kill him first.” It would remove the requirement to use force only as necessary, plus explicit protections for non-combatants and prisoners of war.

The proposal retains commitments to human dignity, professionalism, law, and government authority. However, it removes references to universal moral values. The article presents these changes as a plan, not as an adopted replacement for the existing code.

The article does not provide figures for the IDF’s size. Established public estimates vary by year and definition, but the force generally includes roughly 170,000 active-duty personnel and several hundred thousand reservists, often estimated near 465,000. Active personnel include conscripts and career soldiers. The exact totals change with mobilization and policy.

This structure makes the IDF socially significant. Conscription brings large parts of the population into military service. Career personnel train and command them. Reservists return during emergencies. A common ethical code therefore reaches recruits, officers, support units, commanders, and civilians serving in uniform.

Changing the code could affect education, operational orders, disciplinary decisions, and expectations during combat. It could also shape how soldiers understand Israel’s identity and military purpose. The article’s proposed language would matter at scale because it would apply across a national institution, not merely to one unit or operation. These scale estimates use established public knowledge, not figures supplied by the article.

Removing explicit protections for non-combatants and prisoners of war could weaken soldiers’ clearest internal guidance about people who are not fighting or are already detained. Removing the requirement to use only necessary force could also make proportional, restrained decision-making less prominent. That could increase confusion and the risk of unlawful or abusive conduct.

For example, a soldier confronting a suspected threat might interpret the proposed “kill him first” principle broadly. Without the existing necessity language, the code would offer less direct instruction to pause, identify the threat, and limit force. A detained enemy could also receive less protection in the military’s own ethical text if prisoner safeguards disappeared.

This would not automatically legalize such conduct. International humanitarian law, Israeli law, military orders, and command responsibility would still matter. Courts and commanders could continue investigating or punishing violations. The likely forward concern is a gap between the code’s emphasis on decisive victory and the legal duties that require distinction, necessity, humane treatment, and restraint.

“Purity of Arms,” often rendered from the Hebrew “tohar haneshek,” is associated with the pre-state Haganah and the ethical tradition that shaped the early IDF. It was later expressed in the IDF’s formal ethical framework, “The Spirit of the IDF.” The principle became part of Israel’s effort to define military service as disciplined national defense rather than private violence.

In practice, the principle traditionally directed soldiers to use weapons only for legitimate missions and with restraint. It supported protection for civilians and other non-combatants, humane treatment of prisoners, and rejection of cruelty, humiliation, and revenge. Its meaning was tied to discipline even when soldiers faced serious threats.

The proposal would replace the phrase with “Righteousness of Arms” and remove several related safeguards. That would mark a significant shift in emphasis, from a named restraint principle toward Jewish identity, decisive victory, and defeating enemies. The article does not provide a detailed historical account; this background reflects established historical knowledge about the principle’s origins and role.

The article does not identify the formal legal procedure for changing the IDF code. Under Israel’s constitutional and military structure, the government sets broad security policy, while the defense minister oversees the ministry and the IDF through the military hierarchy. The chief of staff and General Staff ordinarily play central roles in military doctrine, orders, and professional standards.

A defense minister could propose or press for a revised code, as Ben-Gvir has done. Adoption would normally require action by the competent government or military authorities, depending on the code’s legal status. Commanders would then translate approved principles into orders, training, and discipline. Military legal advisers would assess consistency with Israeli law and binding obligations.

Courts do not usually write an army’s ethics code, but they can review decisions, orders, investigations, and punishments. They may invalidate unlawful rules or actions. The key limit is that no minister, government, or commander can remove duties imposed by higher law. This process description uses established knowledge because the article does not explain the legal authority in detail.

International humanitarian law separates civilians from combatants. Parties must distinguish between them and may target only lawful military objectives. Civilians are protected from direct attack unless and for such time as they directly participate in hostilities. Attacks must also be proportionate and take feasible precautions to reduce civilian harm.

Combatants may be attacked while participating in fighting, subject to the laws of war. Once they surrender, are captured, or are otherwise hors de combat, they must not be attacked. Prisoners of war and other detainees must receive humane treatment. Torture, murder, cruel treatment, humiliating treatment, and collective punishment are prohibited.

A national military code can explain these duties, add stricter standards, or shape training. It cannot lawfully remove treaty and customary international-law obligations. If a revised code conflicted with those duties, commanders and soldiers would still be bound by the higher legal rules. The article’s proposed removals therefore could change internal guidance, but not the underlying international legal framework.