IDF admits helmets and body armor may be defective

JTA – A new website quietly launched by the Israeli army allows soldiers to anonymously check whether their equipment meets official standards, tacitly admitting that equipment distributed for free is widespread and that those provided by the IDF are not. always safe.

It is the latest development in a debate that dates back to the start of the war against the Palestinian terror group Hamas in Gaza over whether the army provides adequate protective equipment to its troops.

The military has long maintained that it provides soldiers with everything they need and considers the equipment provided to be potentially dangerous. But it is now officially informing soldiers that their lives may be in danger if they use certain combat equipment provided by the IDF.

Receive our daily edition for free by email so you don’t miss the best news. Free registration!

For example, the site states that all ceramic body armor manufactured before 2009 and supplied by the military must be replaced. The same goes for the metal protective helmets provided by the military.

Members of the volunteer network that has provided soldiers with equipment worth hundreds of millions of dollars throughout the war have long tried to sound the alarm that troops are being sent into battle with equipment obsolete and dangerous. For these civilian observers, the launch of the website is a validation of their statements.

“The first step to solving a problem is admitting it exists,” said Daniel Mael, who runs a fundraising campaign known as Unit 11,741.

“Sadly, it is too late for many soldiers who lost their lives due to poor equipment. Hopefully the website will usher in an era of awareness of the need for reliable equipment on the battlefield and that the IDF will begin providing safe equipment to all of its combat soldiers and reservists. »

In the Q&A section of the site, the military confirms that there have been real-world consequences of using poor-quality equipment.

“There have been a number of cases where the use of equipment that did not meet Army standards has resulted in combat injuries or worse,” the site reads. The statement did not specify whether any of these incidents were related to IDF-supplied equipment.

Since the launch of ground operations following the October 7, 2023 pogrom in the south of the country perpetrated by the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas, more than 400 Israeli soldiers have been killed and 12,000 others injured in fighting in Gaza, in Lebanon and on other fronts.

Last month, Israel and the Lebanese Shiite terrorist group Hezbollah reached a ceasefire agreement to end the conflict in Lebanon and northern Israel, but sporadic attacks from both sides brought the truce to a halt. the test. Israel maintains a significant military presence in Gaza, where it is fighting the remaining Hamas terrorists. Talks between the two sides aimed at a pause in the fighting, the release of Israeli hostages held in Gaza as well as Palestinian prisoners incarcerated for security breaches in Israel have been deadlocked for more than a year.

Official policy, which the military has done little to enforce, is that soldiers are prohibited from accepting donations. One of the concerns behind the ban is that it is difficult to monitor compliance with security standards of scattered donations made to soldiers or units.

The IDF Spokesperson’s Office did not respond to specific questions from the Jewish Telegraphic Agencywhich released a statement touting the website as a response to the widespread use of equipment donations.

“At the beginning of the war, due to the large-scale volunteering of reservists, a phenomenon appeared: the introduction of non-standard equipment into the units,” the statement said.

“Given this phenomenon, the IDF policy regarding the equipment receipt procedure has been clarified, to ensure that all necessary checks are included and to prevent any risk of operational inefficiency or security danger. In late November, the Land Forces Command and the Land Technologies Division of the Directorate of Logistics and Technology launched a website aimed at providing a solution for verifying equipment compliance. »

The site invites any Internet user to answer a series of questions to determine whether equipment is reliable, without needing to identify themselves. Only helmets, ceramic body armor and tactical glasses are considered, which excludes hearing protection and flame-retardant tactical uniforms used, for example, in combat units.

The questions are: Was the item provided by the military or given to you? What is its manufacturing date? What material is it made of? Who is the manufacturer? In the end, users get one of two results: either the equipment is “compliant” or it is “non-compliant and life-threatening,” meaning the soldier must request a replacement.

Some soldiers say they received newer equipment that subsequently suffered serious damage that could compromise its effectiveness. But none of the questions ask about the condition of the equipment, so a new Kevlar helmet, dented or punctured by a bullet, would pass the test, as some have reported.

“They basically tell you, ‘don’t worry, everything is fine’ based on very cursory checks,” said a civilian volunteer, who asked to remain anonymous so as not to jeopardize his relationship with military officials involved in cooperation operations.

So far, the Army has communicated little about the website and it is not known how many troops are using it.

The reason this issue has been brought to widespread attention is likely thanks to Micha Shtiebel, an IDF combat reservist raised in the United States. He has made it his mission to get the military to admit it has a problem and solve it, by lobbying parliamentarians and speaking to the media.

He used the attention he received, as well as the research he conducted, to build relationships with key departments in the military and Department of Defense. According to Shtiebel, he found allies among engineers and scientists at the army’s Directorate of Defense, Research and Development.

“It turned out that these people were already aware of the problem and were proposing solutions without ever getting approval,” Shtiebel pointed out in an interview.

He managed to secure a meeting with decision-makers to discuss a plan to verify protective equipment, and that plan was approved. According to Shtiebel, these tests served as the basis for the creation of the new website.

About two weeks ago, one of his contacts within the Directorate sent him a link to the website.

“I don’t think they realize that I shared it and that it’s now available to everyone,” Shtiebel said.

“They told me it was an early beta and that they were excited and wanted me to see it. I immediately shared it with everyone. »

Shtiebel said he considers the site a decisive victory in his mission.

“I was finally able to exert the necessary pressure to move things forward,” he said happily.

“This project has shown that with enough pressure, we can tackle these big bureaucratic problems,” he added.

“I would like the army to renounce its practices, to apologize and to be held accountable. But for now, I accept this victory. At least it has the merit of tackling the problem. »