Revolt? in the Israeli army: why the ‘Givati’ fighters left the Sde-Teiman base

Dozens of servicemen, and according to some reports over 100 fighters and commanders of the ‘Tsabar’ battalion of the ‘Givati’ brigade, on July 30, 2026, left the Sde-Teiman military base in southern Israel without authorization. They left weapons and army property on the base, took personal belongings, and exited the gates as an organized group following a sharp conflict with the battalion’s command.

What happened became one of the most unusual disciplinary incidents in the IDF in recent times. The military does not officially call it a ‘mutiny,’ but this word was widely used by Israeli and especially Arab media. The official IDF reaction mentions servicemen who left the base without the commanders’ permission and a serious incident that does not align with army values and personnel requirements.

The scale of what happened cannot be considered insignificant. The exact number of the ‘Tsabar’ battalion is not published, but a regular IDF infantry battalion usually numbers several hundred servicemen. Therefore, over 100 fighters and commanders represent approximately an entire reinforced company and a significant part of the battalion’s personnel. If the reported number is confirmed, it is not a protest by a few soldiers, but a collective action by a significant part of the unit.

How many servicemen left the base

The exact number of participants in the demarche has not been officially published at the time of preparing the material.

Various Israeli sources provide significantly different estimates:

• Ynet and several other publications report dozens of servicemen;
• Israel Hayom writes that over 100 fighters and commanders participated in the organized exit;
• Walla claims that hundreds of servicemen could have left the base.

Israel Hayom indicates that the action was relatively coordinated. It involved not only rank-and-file fighters but also some commanders. Walla, citing servicemen, reported that after the mass exit, mainly command staff representatives might have remained in the battalion’s location. There is no official confirmation of the latter statement.

Therefore, the wording about the complete exit of the battalion or the specific number of participants should be taken cautiously for now. It is only confirmed that it was not about a few individual servicemen, but a large organized group from the ‘Tsabar’ battalion.

How the conflict began

The ‘Tsabar’ battalion arrived at the Sde-Teiman base after prolonged combat operations and returning from southern Lebanon. The unit was in the stage of rotation, recovery, and preparation for new tasks.

During a property inspection, commanders examined containers used by individual companies and platoons. These containers stored not only army equipment and personal belongings but also wooden and metal shields, plaques, images, flags, and other unofficial unit symbols.

The command demanded the removal of some of these items. When the servicemen objected, the officers decided to dismantle the symbols themselves. According to the fighters, one of the commanders used a five-kilogram sledgehammer or hammer to break the wooden plaques.

Videos of the destruction of symbols quickly spread through the unit’s internal chats. According to the fighters and their parents, these images became the immediate impetus for the mass exit from the base.

Command’s version: fighting humiliation and unofficial hierarchy

The battalion commander explained his actions as an attempt to stop an unofficial tradition known in the Israeli army as the division into ‘young’ and ‘old-timers.’

This refers to a system where servicemen with longer service receive informal status and can impose their own rules on newcomers. According to the battalion commander, such a practice can lead to humiliation, psychological pressure, and physical violence.

In an address to the servicemen’s parents, the commander stated that he ordered the destruction of wooden plaques with images of the devil, the angel of death, and other symbols that, in his opinion, directly represented the unofficial hierarchy. The rest of the plaques were decided to be removed from the companies, keeping only a few items with obvious emotional value.

The battalion commander also categorically rejected reports that memorial plaques related to fallen servicemen were destroyed.

According to him, the broken items were not related to the fallen fighters of the battalion or official memorial corners. He claims that many servicemen left the base not after an independent decision but under group pressure from fellow servicemen.

Fighters’ version: they destroyed the unit’s history

The battalion’s servicemen present what happened quite differently.

According to them, the wooden and metal plaques were not symbols of humiliation for newcomers but part of a long-standing company culture. Such items were created by fighters, passed from one draft to the next, and accompanied the units during service.

The plaques featured:

• names and numbers of companies and platoons;
• images of animals and warriors;
• symbols related to the unit’s history;
• combat slogans;
• commemorative inscriptions;
• emblems of individual generations of servicemen.

The fighters claim that some of these items were with them during combat operations in the Gaza Strip and southern Lebanon. The symbols were used in company songs, formations, and everyday life of the unit. For the soldiers, they signified belonging to a combat collective and a connection between different generations of servicemen.

In the fighters’ statement, it was mentioned that the battalion commander, company commander, his deputy, and another officer began breaking the plaques without sufficient explanation and without attempting to find a compromise.

The servicemen stated that the destruction of symbols after a prolonged period of combat operations was perceived not as a regular disciplinary measure but as a demonstrative humiliation. According to them, it was not just a wooden structure being destroyed, but a part of the unit’s spirit that supported the fighters in the most challenging moments of service.

Two servicemen who did not participate in the mass exit also told Ynet that the personnel is in a state of severe fatigue after prolonged service and numerous combat missions. In their opinion, the command touched a tradition that existed long before the appointment of the current officers.

Reports of a clash with the battalion commander

Israel Hayom provides an account from one of the participants, according to which a physical conflict occurred during the destruction of the plaques.

According to this serviceman, the battalion commander broke open a container and began smashing the items inside. The company sergeant allegedly tried to stop him, after which the men started pushing each other. The battalion commander then informed the sergeant of his suspension.

This detail is based on the account of one fighter. There is no independent official confirmation of the physical clash, use of force, and the sergeant’s suspension yet. Therefore, this part of the story cannot be considered definitively established.

The fighters left their weapons and exited the gates

After the videos spread, a significant group of servicemen decided to leave the base.

They left weapons and military property on the territory of Sde-Teiman. Published photos show stacked rifles. Those leaving took mainly backpacks, bags, and personal belongings.

One of the participants, addressing the rest, warned that the servicemen should understand the possible consequences: being declared absent without leave, disciplinary court, and military prison. Despite this, he urged to continue the collective exit.

In other videos, the fighters leave the base as a group and shout rude insults at the officers and command staff. According to Ynet, brigade officers began driving around the surrounding area, trying to find the servicemen and persuade them to return.

NANews — News of Israel emphasizes: the published footage confirms the fact of the organized exit and the leaving of weapons, but does not allow independently establishing the exact number of participants.

Ultimatum until 16:00 and appeal to parents

After the servicemen left, the command began contacting them through general WhatsApp groups. Some chats also included the fighters’ parents.

The battalion commander initially informed that servicemen who returned to the base by 16:00 could avoid severe punishment. Those who did not return would be officially declared absent without leave, and their data would be handed over to military police or disciplinary authorities.

Later, an additional deadline appeared: at 16:30, the command planned to conduct a formation and determine who was on the base. The names and personal numbers of absent servicemen were promised to be handed over for further disciplinary review.

In an appeal to parents, the battalion commander asked them to influence their sons and persuade them to return. He stated that he was trying to give the fighters an opportunity to exit the situation without the most severe consequences.

The wording regarding punishment varied somewhat. One message claimed that those who returned would not be punished at all. Another stated that the command could ‘show understanding’ to those who arrived by the set time.

Did the servicemen return

By the evening of July 30, reports of participants returning remained contradictory.

Israel Hayom, citing a senior military official, reported that most servicemen had returned or started returning to the base. The source claimed that final figures would be known after the formation and recount of personnel. IsraelInfo also reported that a significant part of the fighters began returning.

Ynet used a more cautious wording: ‘many fighters began returning.’ The publication also reported on the preparation of a formation, after which the command expected to obtain accurate data.

However, Walla, in a publication updated at 17:43, claimed that after the initial deadline, only a small number of servicemen had returned to the base. According to the publication, parents continued negotiations with the brigade’s higher command.

The discrepancy may be explained by the fact that sources received information at different times or considered different groups of servicemen. However, until the IDF publishes the final results of the formation, it is impossible to reliably name the number of returned and those left outside the base.

What punishments may follow

The command of the 162nd Division stated that what happened would be considered an extremely serious breach of discipline.

According to preliminary information, some servicemen may face a disciplinary court of the battalion commander. Fighters and commanders deemed organizers of the action and who were recorded on videos leading those who left may be personally held accountable by the ‘Givati’ brigade commander.

At the same time, it is still unknown:

• how many servicemen will be held accountable;
• what specific violations they will be charged with;
• whether voluntary return will be taken into account;
• whether commanders will keep the promise not to punish those who arrived by the set deadline;
• whether the actions of officers who destroyed company symbols will be investigated;
• whether the report of the suspension of one of the junior commanders will be confirmed.

Final decisions should be made after an internal review.

Reaction of the ‘Givati’ brigade commander

The ‘Givati’ brigade commander, Colonel Netanel Shamha, sent a special address to the servicemen.

He emphasized that the battalion’s fighters showed courage, performed complex tasks, and risked their lives in various directions. At the same time, the commander called what happened a serious misconduct that has no place in the ‘Givati’ brigade or the IDF.

According to him, army values are tested not only during combat. Trust between fighters and commanders, discipline, and order execution must be maintained in everyday service as well. The brigade commander made it clear that the combat merits of the servicemen would be taken into account but would not cancel the responsibility for unauthorized exit from the base.

How the incident was used by Arab and Iranian media

Videos from Sde-Teiman quickly spread beyond Israel.

Lebanese resources associated with ‘Hezbollah’ called what happened a ‘mutiny in the enemy’s army.’ The Iranian agency Tasnim reported that Israeli servicemen laid down their weapons and left the base after a conflict with the commander.

Materials also appeared on ‘Al-Jazeera,’ Syrian resources, and accounts associated with the pro-Iranian axis. The events were presented as evidence of the internal collapse of the Israeli army, although official data do not confirm such conclusions.

This aspect particularly worries the military leadership: an internal disciplinary conflict instantly became material for the propaganda of Israel’s opponents.

What the ‘Tsabar’ battalion represents

‘Tsabar’ is the 432nd regular infantry battalion of the ‘Givati’ brigade. It was created in 1983 as part of the restored brigade.

According to official IDF information, the battalion includes five companies: headquarters, rifle, support, operational, and training. At various times, the unit performed tasks in the Gaza Strip, Lebanon, Judea and Samaria, and other directions.

The battalion’s fighters went through a prolonged period of intensive combat operations. Walla reported that the brigade recently completed lengthy operations in southern Lebanon, after which part of the units was sent for rest, preparation, and task execution in other directions.

Prolonged service and accumulated fatigue do not justify unauthorized leaving of the base but may be an important part of the context. Judging by the fighters’ statements, the dispute over the plaques was not the only reason for dissatisfaction but a point where accumulated tension turned into open protest.

Do not mix the two Sde-Teiman stories

The current incident is not related to the criminal and public disputes surrounding the detention of detainees at the Sde-Teiman base, which began earlier.

The only connection between these stories is the location. The events of July 30, 2026, concern an internal conflict in the ‘Tsabar’ battalion, company symbols, the command’s fight against unofficial traditions, and the unauthorized exit of servicemen.

Why this incident is important

The IDF faces a complex task.

On one hand, no combat unit can exist without discipline and recognition of commanders’ authority. The organized exit of armed servicemen from the base, even if the weapons were left in the unit’s location, creates a dangerous precedent.

On the other hand, the military leadership must determine why the conflict over a few plaques led to such a large-scale reaction and why dozens of experienced fighters, who recently returned from war, decided to risk their freedom and further service.

NANews — News of Israel notes that the internal investigation should assess not only the soldiers’ actions but also the commanders’ decisions: whether there was a real threat of violence and humiliation, whether all disputed symbols were studied, whether negotiations with the fighters were conducted, and whether the demonstrative destruction of items in front of the formation could have been avoided.

The command must simultaneously restore discipline without destroying combat capability and trust within the battalion. Simple severe punishment without analyzing the reasons may deepen the crisis. But refusal to take responsibility for the organized exit can form the impression that a commander’s order can be canceled by collective pressure.

What remains unknown

At the time of publication, the IDF has not reported:

• the exact number of servicemen who left;
• the exact number of those who returned;
• the results of the evening formation;
• the names and positions of the organizers;
• the final list of destroyed items;
• confirmation or refutation of the physical clash;
• decision regarding the company sergeant major;
• list of disciplinary measures;
• results of the battalion commander’s actions review;
• the future fate of the unit itself.

For now, it can be confidently stated that there is a large and unprecedented disciplinary crisis within the combat battalion. However, final conclusions about its scale, culprits, and consequences can only be made after an official investigation and the publication of accurate IDF data.

Is 100 fighters a lot?

Yes, more than 100 fighters and commanders of one battalion — that’s a lot. It’s not about a few dissatisfied servicemen, but approximately an entire company or even a reinforced company that simultaneously left the unit’s location.

How many people are in the ‘Tzabar’ battalion

The IDF does not publish the exact current number of the 432nd ‘Tzabar’ battalion. The official page only indicates its structure: the battalion consists of five companies — headquarters, rifle, support, operational, and training.

The number varies depending on:

• the staffing of a specific draft;
• losses, injuries, and transfers;
• leaves and training;
• whether the training company is with the battalion;
• the current combat mission.

According to open estimates, a regular infantry battalion of this type may number approximately 500–700 servicemen, including command and support units. In broader reference estimates, figures up to 800–1000 people are also encountered, but this is more likely the full staff number with all attached and training elements. The IDF itself refers to the battalion commander as an officer responsible for ‘hundreds of soldiers,’ without specifying an exact number.

Thus, 100 people — that’s approximately 14–20% of the full battalion. If only its active operational part was at the Sde-Teiman base, without training and temporarily absent units, the share of participants could be significantly higher — possibly about a quarter or even a third of the personnel present there.

How many people are in the ‘Givati’ brigade

‘Givati’ — the 84th regular infantry brigade of the IDF. Its core consists of three line battalions:

• ‘Shaked’ — 424th;
• ‘Tzabar’ — 432nd;
• ‘Rotem’ — 435th.

In addition to them, the structure includes a reconnaissance unit, headquarters, communications, logistics, and other brigade parts. The current IDF page also mentions a new engineering battalion 607.

The exact number of the entire brigade is also not disclosed. A reasonable approximate estimate is about 3–5 thousand servicemen, considering line battalions, reconnaissance, headquarters, engineering, and support units.

At the brigade level, 100 people — that’s approximately 2–3% of the personnel. But such a comparison is somewhat misleading because all participants in the incident represented one specific battalion.