The IDF vs. the people of Israel, cont.

The IDF is Israel’s defense force. But last week, with a heavy heart, I wrote for the New York Times about how “the army, which historically enjoyed support across the Jewish Israeli spectrum, has become politicized.” Recent debates, I argued, turned the “most revered institution” into a “political football.” It is a problematic trend, even dangerous, and today I unhappily report that my article has changed nothing – articles rarely do. The trend continues, even accelerating, as the Prime Minister summoned his Defense Minister for “clarification” over a speech by the Minister, Moshe Yaalon, in which he defended the leadership of the military.

Yaalon urged the leaders of the IDF to “keep speaking their mind.” Prime Minister Netanyahu responded to Yaalon’s call with a chilliness usually reserved for political rivals, not for fellow Likud Ministers who serve under him and who pose no political threat to him. “The IDF's commanders freely speak their minds—in relevant forums and on topics under their purview,” a statement from the PM’s office said. “The IDF is the army of the people and should be kept out of political disputes.” Netanyahu then asked Yaalon to see him in his office today.

My New York Times article explained with some detail the background to recent public debate over positions taken by the leadership of the IDF. There were statements concerning trigger-happy Israelis who kill Palestinian attackers even when the killing is not essential. There was the incident over the soldier in Hebron, who shot an attacker that was already wounded and seemed to pose no threat to the IDF force. Then, on Holocaust Memorial Day, there was the annoying speech by the Deputy Chief of Staff of the IDF, General Yair Golan, in which the General pointed to similarities between 2016 Israel and 1930s Germany. As I wrote last week, this speech “was not well received. For one thing, Holocaust Remembrance Day is not the time for controversial political statements. Moreover, what he said is nonsense. Israel is guilty of many sins, but ‘abhorrent processes that took place in Europe,’ as he put it, are not happening here. The general was repudiated by politicians, mocked on social media and called upon by pundits to resign.”

My argument in last week’s article was twofold:

The first argument was that in most cases – Golan is an unfortunate exception – what the IDF is saying, and the norms and standards it stands for, should be commended. These top commanders who speak publically about proper behavior in battle are rattled by trends within Israel’s society that make it less receptive to messages of moral conduct in fights against an enemy.

The second argument was that the IDF, as it pursues these worthy goals, is acting without a strategy and putting itself in an unsustainable position. The IDF is an army of the people. It cannot sustain itself and the moral conduct it desires by positioning itself as an opposition to the democratically elected government (if you want historical comparisons: Israel is not 20th century Turkey). It cannot sustain itself and the moral conduct it desires by going against the people. The people who make the IDF need cajoling, education, discipline when they are in uniform – not public lecturing that makes them look bad (and certainly not statements that equate their conduct to that of Nazi Germany).

But, of course, the failure is not just the failure of the IDF. The leaders of the army feel the need to speak against ugly trends and troubling populist tendencies because they see no one else who wants to do this dirty job. The way some of them see it, they are tasked with keeping Israel safe and secure, and speaking the way they do is part of this mission. For Israel to be secure, it needs to be moral. For Israel to be Israel, it needs to keep its values intact.

Ah – values! What are Israel’s values, and who determines what values should be retained and what values should be scrapped? And how does one differentiate between values and policies?

The politicians in power have a point when they say that the military has no place in the debate about Israel’s policies. And they have a point when they say that “values” is oftentimes just a fancy word for political preferences. The leaders of the IDF also have a point when they say – behind closed doors – that the politicians only complain when the IDF leadership refuses to toe the party line. That they would not complain had the IDF leadership made an argument that boosts the policies and the values advanced by the government.

Trapped in the middle of this political minefield is Defense Minister Yaalon. In the past, Yaalon was a General with a tendency to put his foot in his mouth. Currently, he is a fierce defender of the IDF’s top leadership. When Yaalon tells his commanders to keep talking, he knows what talking in uniform can do to you. As a Chief Intelligence Officer Yaalon angered many people by arguing that Iran is trying to influence Israel’s election – a statement that was suspiciously interpreted as politically tainted. Later, as Chief of Staff, Yaalon was famously reluctant about the disengagement from Gaza – and was deposed by Prime Minister Ariel Sahron, who replaced him with a more cooperative General.

That is to say: Yaalon might be wrong – but he is consistent. He does not believe in a silent IDF that salutes and obeys without asking questions, making statements, and angling to have a say not just about implementation of government strategies but also about the strategies – that is, policies – themselves. Yaalon is in line with what the IDF always has been: a political force to be reckoned with. Always obedient, but never truly above the political fray. This is the flip coin of having an army of the people – an army that is not a bubble of military professionalism, but rather a vibrant organ of Israel’s messy democracy.

Refusing to recognize that fact when it is less convenient for him, Netanyahu is, of course, less consistent. But he is politically more astute than his Defense Minister. Yaalon has no real political power within his party. He needed Netanyahu’s backing to have a reasonable showing in the Likud primaries. He needs his backing to retain his position as Defense Minister.

Why Yaalon decided to make a tense situation tenser by making a speech is fairly clear: he believes that the IDF deserves firmer support, and he is unhappy with the fact that attacking and criticizing the army’s leadership is the new sport of rightwing politicians. He is also fazed by renewed talks about an expansion of the coalition that could cost him his position as Defense Minister – former minister Avigdor Liberman long ago made it clear that the only portfolio he truly covets is that of Defense Minister.

Why did Netanyahu decide to discipline Yaalon? Netanyahu has a long history of not getting along with Defense Ministers: Netanyahu fired Yitzhak Mordechai from the post back in 1999. His good relations with Defense Minister Ehud Barak soured toward the end of their journey as political partners. But why would he pick a fight with the loyal Yaalon? Because he truly believes that recent comments by IDF leaders – especially the ones by General Golan – were harmful to Israel. Because he is continuously annoyed by an IDF leadership that seems reluctant to accept his policies (this becomes evident whenever an IDF leader retires and becomes free to really speak his mind). Because Yaalon needs him more than he needs Yaalon – and hence he is not worried about political penalties. Because Yaalon, who insists on moderation, is currently a lightning rod of all rightwing frustrations (and the newly found darling of a left that used to smear him). And – possibly – because of political considerations. That is to say: Maybe Netanyahu wants to make the Defense Ministry available for someone else.