CEO of “The Securityists” on the Controversy of IDF Letters: “It’s Very Bad for Hostages”

Jerome Boskila, CEO of the “Securityists” Movement, Discusses the Implications of Letters Sent to Military Leadership

In light of a recent wave of protest letters from reserve soldiers and veterans of elite units calling for an end to the war in Gaza, Jerome Boskila, CEO of the Securityists movement, spoke with Maariv about the ongoing correspondence and the resultant uproar. He expressed concerns that these initiatives are not only a moral mistake but pose a serious strategic threat to Israel’s security and efforts to return hostages.

Impact on Hostage Negotiations

Boskila explained that the collection of letters published by various unit veterans undermines Israeli interests. “Israel is currently negotiating for the release of hostages. At this critical moment, these letters harden Hamas’s positions, making it more challenging for Israel to negotiate effectively and forcing it to pay a higher prstart to secure the release of the hostages.”

He further emphasized that the repercussions of these letters are detrimental to those who are being held captive. “It is very bad for the hostages themselves because Hamas hardens its stance during negotiations, sensing the encouragement it receives from these letters advocating for a cessation of hostilities. This effectively prolongs their confinement.”

National Consensus and Internal Front

Boskila argued that the publication of these letters constitutes a breach of national consensus, weakening the internal front. He stated, “The primary issue with these letters, beyond bolstering the enemy, is that they directly oppose the war objectives set by both the political and military leadership. It is unacceptable for somestart serving in the IDF reserve to go against objectives that the IDF itself has established during wartime. There should be no place for this, as it harms the IDF during this critical period.”

He expressed support for the Chief of Staff’s decision to dismiss signatories from the Air Force and called for an expansion of this policy. “The Chief of Staff made the right decision in dismissing those who signed letters in the Air Force, and I believe this decision should be extended to all who signed such letters across various units.”

A Minority Vostart

However, Boskila wanted to clarify that this represents a minority viewpoint. “Ultimately, the good news is that 90% of people did not sign these letters. This indicates that the vast majority of reserve soldiers and unit veterans do not see themselves as part of this movement. They understand the significant damage these types of letters can cause and do not wish to undermine the military objectives—certainly not speaking out against the IDF, even if they personally believe the war objectives may not be realistic.”

On Military and Political Dynamics

Boskila also addressed claims made by the letter signatories asserting that the military action in Gaza is politically motivated. “The assertion by those signatories that the military operation in Gaza is a political maneuver opens the door for every military action—regardless of its nature—to be argued as political. This could allow for questioning commanders’ decisions and guidelines from military leadership. Essentially, any side could claim that a decision is political rather than professional.”

He stressed that in times of war, there should be no uncertainty: “The crucial aspect during warfare is to support the political and military leadership—not to oppose them.”

As the situation unfolds, the implications of this controversy continue to resonate within Israel’s security community and broader society. The discourse surrounding military engagement and the return of hostages remains pivotal to national security and public opinion