The desperate attempts to rescue a security-based discussion that opposes Israel's sovereignty plans are ceaseless. The process started with the group Commanders for Israel's Security, who made it their mission to stop the "annexation." They made a number of remarks in an attempt to recruit the best and the brightest to influence not only public opinion but also – and mainly – their active-duty cohort. Thus began a series of comments that were presented as anonymous statements from Commanders for Israel's Security, explaining that the sovereignty bid would lead to escalation, and others warning that Israel's military had not been given enough time to prepare.
The problem isn't the messages, but the tactics. It has become the norm in Israel for members of the defense establishment to hang up their uniforms and immediately enter politics, expecting us to believe that until that very moment, their staunch opinions had not mattered. This is, of course, problematic.
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter
Given the public mood of what is known in professional literature as "anti-militarism," which has spread since the First Lebanon War and moved from the general public into the military, it's not surprising to see that many of these generals are exposing themselves as dovish.
It also appears that for some time now, these political voices aren't waiting for the IDF Spokesperson to approve public statements while they are still in the military. But the legitimacy of their comments, like other comments in Israeli society, depends on which side of the political aisle they represent.
For example, former Chief of Staff Ehud Barak's famous statement against the Oslo Accords, when he called them "Swiss cheese," met with an unpopular response. Former Chief of Staff Shaul Mofaz, who opposed Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon, drew fire when for his mild remark that "the military does not choose its missions." And Moshe Ya'alon, who opposed the disengagement from the Gaza Strip, was simply ousted.
Still, like always, criticism that promotes dovish policy is presented in a different light. Amnon Lipkin-Shahak's oppositionist attitude toward Benjamin Netanyahu was cast as a legitimate, almost heroic, struggle. And again, in 2009, when it looked like Netanyahu would be winning again, all of a sudden Gabi Ashkenazi saw a surge in popularity that created great hope that the government's belligerent attitude would be restrained. Ashkenazi was seen as the general who showed restraint during Operation Cast Lead and was treated even more gently when he opposed military action against Iran's nuclear program. Benny Gantz exhibited the same restraint, when he led Operation Protective Edge in a spirit of avoidance – avoiding harm to civilians, the destruction of Hamas tunnels, and a ground invasion of Gaza – and received positive media coverage for it.
This game between Right and Left, exhausting and imbalanced as it is, is transparent and familiar to everyone. What is more disturbing now is the possibility, or danger, that things will transition from a political debate to the development of another dimension of the deep state. As the power of the law enforcement authorities and the legal system runs unchecked and unelected functionaries hold higher positions than the sovereign entity, new norms have been created along with a system of "watchmen" that serves the public, which needs to be defended or even rescued from its elected officials. It would not be out of the realm of possibility to fear that something similar could take place in the military.
Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!
