Rosner’s Domain | Golan’s Hobby, Israel’s Morality

A national leader must know how to use words. Know when to speak and when to hold back. Know how to phrase things, and how not to. Know the difference between a rally speech and a diplomatic conversation. Know, in advance, how his words will be understood — and how they might be used.

Yair Golan, the head of the leftist Democrats Party wants to be a national leader. Polls suggest that he might actually have a shot. But the way he uses words sometimes raises the suspicion that he’s not quite ready for the job. What exactly did Golan, a general and a former IDF deputy chief of staff, intend to gain when he raised a storm by declaring that “a sane country doesn’t wage war on civilians, doesn’t kill babies as a hobby and doesn’t set goals like population expulsion”? Although he did walk it back, what would he have lost if he had phrased the point he presumably meant to make a bit more cautiously? 

Yes, directness has power. So does, occasionally, bluntness. But these powers must be learned – learned to wield, and learned to restrain. Israel, for all its many faults, doesn’t “kill babies as a hobby.” Israel – and this holds true whether one supports or opposes its current war effort – doesn’t just “wage war on civilians.” 

So why did Golan use such language? I assume – in fact, I’m convinced – that he wants to save Israel from what he sees as a possible descent down a moral slope. It is one thing to be engaged in aggressive war when the objective is clear, and the rationale for a renewed fight is solid. It’s another when the war is waged for vaguer purposes (possibly, as Golan suspects, for domestic political purposes). 

There are four possible ways to respond to Golan’s decision to raise the alarm:

• Share his concern – disregarding the way he expressed it.

• Share his concern, but reject his exagerated rhetoric. 

• Dismiss the concern as unfounded.

• Think there’s no need at all to preserve moral standards.

You can probably place most Israelis into one of these categories.

Future Golan voters share Golan’s concern. That doesn’t mean they were thrilled about his wording. But they understand what he’s worried about, and for that reason, more of them than the media’s flurry of condemnations would suggest will forgive his bluntness. Golan was blunt and controversial before when, on Holocaust Memorial Day 2016, he warned of “horrifying processes,” similar to those that “occurred in Europe” in the ’30s, that inflict Israel. His remarks drew wide condemnation, but his current supporters believe that he was vindicated, that his warning was apt. 

In the second group, you’ll find not a few people who bear responsibility for soldiers’ lives. Those lashed out at Golan – not because they’re unconcerned about Israel’s moral standing, and not because they believe there’s no reason to be worried, but because they’re more worried about the impact of Golan’s remarks. On Israel’s international image. On its ability to fight. On the risks officers could face when they travel abroad. On efforts to stave off sanctions. These critics think there are things that must be dealt with quietly.

Then there’s the third group – the untroubled. The ones who believe everything’s fine: The IDF operates within the bounds of international law, its soldiers follow ethical codes, its commanders steer clear of shady operations. True, some politicians say irresponsible things that give Israel an undeserved bad reputation – but these politicians are just making noise, they don’t control operations. 

The fourth group is the untroubled. They simply don’t care about Israel’s way of conducting war. How big is this group? That’s a good question, and here’s a hint: Most Israelis say an effort should be made to avoid harming civilians. They want to win, but also want to try – try – to avoid a harming of uninvolved civilians. At the same time, nearly half of Jewish Israelis say they don’t care. Not in those words, of course. What they actually say is “win – no matter how.”

Let’s assume you’re not in that fourth camp – the one where morality doesn’t matter. Are these numbers a cause for concern?

They can be interpreted in several ways. One might assume those who picked “win – no matter how” simply meant to underscore their desire for victory. Perhaps they too would rather avoid needless harm to noncombatants – but didn’t want to choose an answer that could be read as signaling weaker resolve.

But there’s a harsher interpretation. The question clearly stated that victory would be sought either way. So the respondents could pick a win without attempted caution or a win plus attempted caution. If they didn’t pick caution, maybe it’s really because they just don’t care.

Something I wrote in Hebrew

The controversial appointment of a new Internal Security Chief made me write this:

There are at least four reasons to oppose the appointment of David Zini as head of the Shin Bet. And there is at least one reason to support it. Both camps – critics and supporters – would do well to acknowledge the full picture. A flat, one-dimensional view doesn’t help foster a useful public debate, or even a productive argument … Editorial suggestion: distance yourself from the one-dimensional extremes. Editorial prediction: our suggestion will have little to no effect on where you end up.

A week’s numbers

For now, there’s one potential candidate that beats Netanyahu in a head to head race. Note that in Israel’s parliamentry system, a head to head race means something – but does not guarantee victory. Not even close (Ch.12 News poll).

A reader’s response

Ravi G. asks: “How is Israel’s economy doing in such a long war? Answer: Not as bad as you’d think, not as good as you’d want. A headline from earlier this week: “Due to the renewal of fighting: an excess of more than NIS15 billion in the defense budget.”

Shmuel Rosner is senior political editor. For more analysis of Israeli and international politics, visit Rosner’s Domain at jewishjournal.com/rosnersdomain.