The appointment of a new IDF chief of staff during a caretaker government is a worthy discourse, although in my opinion, less crucial than made out to be.
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram
Or at least that is what I thought until I heard people quote MK Yoav Kisch's tweet in which he threatened to oust Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara if she accepted Defense Minister Benny Gantz's request for the appointment of the next military chief, should Likud return to power again.
What can one conclude from this?
Perhaps that the role of the attorney general is a political one and serves clear political interests, and as such, must be replaced by either a political institution that will serve the new government's interests, or an apolitical institution. Either way, there is no other way to understand this except that the existing institution is political, and can therefore no longer continue to exist in its current form.
The position is part of the law enforcement system, but beyond that, so long there isn't a binding interpretation by a court, an attorney general is the authorized interpreter of the law that binds the government. Indeed, it is possible to appeal to the Supreme Court and give legitimacy to the judiciary, after years of its trust being undermined.
I was happy to hear that the head of the opposition denounced the comments, but I have not yet heard an apology from Kisch himself, or whoever said that the attorney general would be replaced "anyway." If that's the case, why are things proceeding relatively quietly?
Perhaps because we have gotten used to, so to speak, such degrading treatment of anyone who was not elected by the public. In old democracies, it is common to refer to them as "civil servants," those who safeguard the apolitical public interest and are unaffected by government changes.
In Israel, they are officials. Professionals in areas such as education, health, welfare, and others, who on the one hand, must implement the elected officials' policies and on the other, constantly represent a larger public interest.
Another reason for the quiet might be perhaps because we have gotten used to this unbearable price. Contrary to the attorney general, the chief of staff needs to have confidence in the implementation of government policy. However, he is in charge of the IDF. Some of them voted for parties that are part of the government, some didn't, and some have not yet been elected.
Each and every one of them risks their lives in their "shift" for the safety and security of the country. If the appointment of the chief of staff is perceived as a political issue, what will be the significance of a soldier sacrificing his life if the chief of staff is not "his"?
We all remember how despite the attorney general's approval, the public affairs minister chose not to appoint a police chief in the interim government, which left us without one for two years. Is anyone making sure that something like this does not happen again?
I suppose I'm not adding anything new here, and if Kisch does not recant his words, it seems he thinks the price might be worth it, to achieve some kind of political interest.
I suggest we all recover. The destruction caused by this messiah in recent years has even undermined trust in our "sacred space," the IDF, which almost every Israeli household identifies with. We should just remember that it is not for nothing that trust in political parties is the lowest of all.
Yes, this too is a danger to democracy, which Knesset members have to deal with.
Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!
