Sometimes, we must pause and ask ourselves: What does real heroism look like?
On Wednesday, Israel was presented with two contrasting images. One showed the raw courage of a young man languishing in captivity in Gaza. The other showed a distortion of the very word “heroism” – a reminder of how twisted our national conversation has become.
The first image was of Rom Braslavski, whose name should have already been etched into our national consciousness. He’s 21 years old and one of 24 living Israeli hostages still held in Gaza. A video released by Palestinian Islamic Jihad on Wednesday showed him weak as he pleads with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – “Where are you?”
Braslavski worked as a security guard at the Nova music festival on October 7. When Hamas terrorists stormed the site, he could have fled, but he didn’t. As an off-duty soldier, Braslavski decided to stay and help others escape. He saved lives and was taken hostage for it. As of Friday, he has spent 560 days in captivity.
That is true heroism.
Now contrast that with the second image of the day: the warm welcome received by “A,” a Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) reservist who had just been released from custody after he was arrested for allegedly leaking classified information to journalists and politicians. Among those who publicly supported him was Diaspora Affairs Minister Amichai Chikli, who went so far as to call “A” an “Israeli hero.”
Hero?
This is the same treatment received by Ari Rosenfeld, a Military Intelligence reservist accused of bypassing his superiors to leak sensitive intelligence documents to members of Netanyahu’s inner circle. Likud politicians lined up to praise him. Another “hero,” they said.
Let’s be clear: This is not heroism.
Israel’s security establishment functions on trust and discipline. A soldier or reservist who unilaterally decides to leak top-secret documents is not exposing corruption or safeguarding democracy; they’re gambling with national security. They’re weakening the very institutions they claim to defend.
There’s a reason we have chains of command. Without them, there is chaos. If every intelligence officer decided on their own what to share and with whom, nothing in Israel would be safe – no operation, no source, no state secret.
The glorification of these leakers is wrong. It undermines faith in the military, erodes the authority of commanders, and gives license to others who may feel similarly justified in breaking the rules.
Heroism, in Israel, used to mean sacrifice. It meant running toward danger, not from it. It meant putting the country before oneself. That’s what Braslavski did. He didn’t do what he did to push a political agenda. He stayed behind to save others.
That is the hero we should be talking about.
But in today’s Israel, where every issue is looked at through the prism of pro-Bibi or anti-Bibi, even the word “hero” has become politicized. Every arrest, every headline, and every leak is interpreted based on which political side it benefits.
The result is absurd. Reservists who leak top-secret information are heroes, while actual hostages are sidelined and turned into pawns in a cynical political game.
So, let’s be clear: Braslavski is a hero. Rosenfeld and “A” are not. That distinction matters not just for semantics but, more importantly, for the soul of the country.
***
What’s new in the latest report that US President Donald Trump stopped Israel from striking Iran? Some of the details, perhaps. But the substance? Not really.
It is a rerun of a story we’ve been watching for 15 years. In 2010, it was Israel’s own security chiefs – then-Mossad director Meir Dagan and former IDF chief of staff Gabi Ashkenazi – who reportedly blocked Netanyahu’s plans. In 2012, it was Barack Obama who drew the red line. And now, it’s Trump.
Why release this now? Because it fits the narrative Netanyahu wants: I’m ready to act, but “they” won’t let me.
Maybe that was true once. Maybe even twice. But a third time? At some point, it doesn’t look like a pattern of restraint but rather of someone who is bluffing.
The truth is that there is a window of opportunity to act against Iran now. This is because Iran is weak (the capabilities of its proxies – Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis – have been degraded), and it is vulnerable (its Russian S-300 air defense systems have been destroyed), but the problem is that where Israel sees an opportunity to attack, Trump sees an opportunity to make a deal.
In the end, the issue with Iran’s nuclear program remains the same as it has been for the last 20 years: While the IDF can attack independently and cause extensive damage, it cannot completely destroy the program as it did in 1981 in Iraq or 2007 in Syria. It can set Iran back several years, but the understanding is that without American skin in the game, the Iranians – who have all the technical knowledge without foreign assistance – will race to the bomb and get it.
And that is the dilemma: attack and gamble what happens next, or hope for one of two outcomes from the nuclear talks – either a good deal is reached that stops Iran, or the talks fail, and Trump decides to green-light the military route and actively participate in it.
Either way, the clock is ticking.
The writer is co-author of a forthcoming book, While Israel Slept, about the October 7 Hamas attacks and is a senior fellow at the Jewish People Policy Institute, a global Jewish think tank based in Jerusalem.