Were there public protests in Israel supporting IDF soldiers accused of sexual violence in custody?
Executive summary
Yes. In late July 2024 there were public protests in Israel explicitly supporting Israeli soldiers who were under investigation for allegedly sexually abusing a Palestinian detainee; those demonstrations included far‑right activists, some lawmakers and government ministers, and culminated in protesters breaking into military facilities where the soldiers were held or under investigation [1][2][3].
1. What happened on the ground: protests, break‑ins and who joined them
Hundreds of demonstrators, described in multiple outlets as far‑right supporters, converged on military facilities after at least nine reservist soldiers were detained for questioning over alleged severe abuse at the Sde Teiman detention centre; those protesters breached the Sde Teiman site and later entered Beit Lid, the base where some of the accused were due to appear before military authorities [1][3][4]. Reporting from Truthout and Newsweek also documents that some protesters pushed against soldiers, attempted to storm military and judicial facilities and publicly demanded the release of the accused, with videos and on‑the‑ground accounts showing lawmakers and at least two ministers attending or endorsing the demonstrations [2][5].
2. The political overlay: ministers, lawmakers and public rhetoric
Senior figures in the coalition framed the detained soldiers as “heroes” and attacked the investigation; Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and other hard‑line voices urged support for the accused and criticized their detention, while some members of parliament were reported at or near the demonstrations demanding release [3][2][5]. At the same time, top military leadership and other government officials condemned the break‑ins and called for the rule of law — Defence Minister Yoav Gallant and the IDF chief publicly denounced the trespasses and affirmed support for military prosecutors’ work [4][3].
3. Motives and narratives among protesters
Organizers and prominent supporters presented the protests as defending soldiers serving in an unpopular, brutal conflict and resisting what they saw as politically or morally misguided prosecutions; legal defence groups sympathetic to nationalist causes were publicly involved in defending the accused [5][2]. Independent reporting suggests that the protests also reflected broader societal tensions about the war with Hamas, the place of reservists in politics, and a fracture between hard‑line elements that prioritize security and those insisting on accountability [6][4].
4. Law enforcement, military response and accountability claims
Eyewitness and media accounts say protesters entered bases yet few immediate arrests were reported, prompting questions about how security forces responded and whether political intervention delayed police action — Defense Ministry inquiries were requested into potential failures to stop the break‑ins [5][4]. The IDF has stated it investigates alleged abuses and senior commanders publicly backed investigators, while human‑rights groups and some media have documented allegations of systematic mistreatment of detainees that critics say demand independent scrutiny [4][7].
5. Competing truths and limitations of current reporting
Contemporary sources converge that pro‑soldier demonstrations occurred and sometimes escalated to unlawful entry of bases, but they also show competing narratives: the military and some Israeli officials deny systemic abuse at detention centres and stress due process, while survivors, rights groups and reporting allege sexual and other grave abuses [1][7][8]. Available reporting documents the July 2024 protests clearly [1][2][3], but it cannot on its own resolve contested forensic facts about the alleged crimes or fully map all political actors’ motives beyond what journalists and spokespeople stated.
6. What this reveals about the wider context
The protests in support of accused soldiers were not isolated street actions but a symptom of a deeper polarization: they blended nationalist politics, public anger over the war’s human cost, and vocal defense of military actors — a mix that produced visible pressure on military and judicial institutions and prompted public debate on whether accountability measures should proceed amid wartime pressures [6][4][5]. Observers cited in the press warned that political pressure on investigations risks undermining public confidence in accountability mechanisms while inflaming an already fraught domestic debate [4].