Echoes of Heroism, Silence in the Room

By the time Captain Karni Gez’s all-female tank crew moved on after the battle at Kibbutz Holit October 2023, the debate around women in combat should have ended. Their actions—alongside those of other women who fought, commanded, and protected that day—offered clear proof: capability isn’t the issue. But over a year later, public opinion has cooled, policy hasn’t changed, and the same questions are still being asked.

Prof. Elisheva Rosman, associate professor in the Department of Political Studies at Bar-Ilan University, has spent years studying civil-military relations, with a focus on gender. Her message to decision-makers is that this puzzle can be solved. Now that they have proof of ability, its a matter of putting the pieces together optimally so that military units are comprised by the right people, with the proper abilities, regardless of gender.

The Reality on the Ground

For the past two years, women fought defending the country. From the battle of Zikim, where women made up nearly half of the fallen, to Lieutenant Colonel Or Livni-Ben Yehuda and her unit capturing 15 terrorists at Yated—female soldiers proved their value. They weren’t theoretical participants. They were commanders, medics, tank operators, and warriors.

“These women fought under the most extreme conditions,” Rosman emphasizes. “And they fought well.”

Yet, instead of reshaping policy, as the war progressed, public discourse returned to its original narrative, as if the occurrences of October 7 never happened.

When Data Doesn’t Drive Policy

Before the war, support for women in combat was already on the rise—66% in a 2022 poll. It briefly rose further to 69% after October 7, then dropped to 50% by March 2024. Even more telling: while 40% of respondents said they’d want their son in combat, only 24% said the same about their daughter.

“The drop shows that our collective fears and assumptions about women’s roles—particularly as daughters, sisters, and mothers—still override what we see in reality,” says Rosman.

Despite the battlefield evidence, policy has not evolved. Why?

“Life. Politics. Tradition. Fear,” she says.

Rosman argues that the debate is stuck in old frameworks: views about physical standards, religious objections, and social discomfort with women in harm’s way. But these frameworks ignore what the research shows. “We know that physical strength alone doesn’t define a good soldier. We accept reservists who aren’t in peak physical condition because they bring other skills. Why not apply the same reasoning to women?”

The Cultural Wall

The resistance, Rosman believes, runs deeper than data or battlefield reports.

“Israel is still a traditional society, and for the most part, sees combat as a necessity, not a goal” she says. “Parents already struggle with the idea of their sons serving in combat. The idea of their daughters doing the same is even harder to accept.”

Even within the military, institutional resistance is slow to shift. “Like all large institutions, the military doesn’t want to change. Change is a result of needs, and even then, it tends to happen in small spurts.”

Complicating matters further is the broader societal desire to integrate Haredi men into the IDF—an effort that may come at the expense of women’s roles. “Socio-religious considerations can trump practical ones,” she says.

Rethinking the Question

Rosman believes the central question needs to shift: not “Can women fight?”—they already have—but rather, “How can we best use every capable individual to defend the country?”

As long as the conversation stays focused on gender—rather than strategy, resource allocation, and effectiveness—women’s combat service will remain symbolic, not systemic.

“Military service should be about professionalism, effectiveness, and resilience,” she says, “and that is what should come into play when we discuss policy regarding women’s participation in combat. ”

Was October 7 a Turning Point?

“Many thought it would be,” says Rosman. “But history shows that even extreme moments don’t always lead to real change. World War II and 1948 saw women in combat, but when the war was over, women returned to non-combat military roles, if at all. In Israel, it wasn’t clear they would be drafted even when conscription was instituted, despite the actual evidence in the 1948 war. In the civilian world, women were able to leverage their war-roles to achieve more equality. The military was slower to change.”

Still, change is taking place, if incremental and gradual. In ongoing studies, some young recruits have begun rethinking gender roles considering the war. And in at least one focus group, using reservists, the conversation is shifting, indicating that as more soldiers witness women’s performance themselves and see the growing need for personnel, the more they are open to seeing women in the ranks.

But it will take more than battlefield heroism to move the needle.

A Call to Decision-Makers

“If I could speak directly to policymakers,” Rosman says, “I would tell them that they are not utilizing 50% of the population effectively. Not all men are suited for combat, and there are women who are. The military system will have to change, our social conceptions will need to change. As we adapt to the post-war reality, public discourse will shift, and enable policy change.

The military needs to be realistic about what it needs and how those needs can be met, including utilizing “man” power effectively.”