Opinions | Columnists
Israeli military under scanner
In sharp contrast to the respect that the country's armed forces have traditionally enjoyed, recent critical remarks bring to the fore disillusionment with the establishment
- By As'ad Abdul Rahman, Special to Gulf News
- Published: 00:00 October 18, 2008
- Image Credit:
The role and weight of the Israeli military-security establishment in the country's politics is not confined to interference in the defence budget, or to the active management of wars.
It exceeds that to forging the political strategies and to "defining the fighting goals". Indeed, Israel has so far been influenced by changing dynamics that rendered the role of the military-security establishment oscillating between rise and ebb.
Yet, observing the path taken by this establishment since its foundation (before the creation of the State of Israel), one will notice that, unlike other "democratic" countries, its role is not confined to the armed forces. Recently, the Israeli media has sharply criticised the establishment, which has traditionally been beyond criticism.
There were severe negative comments in a file received from the Cabinet and the Knesset and even from some non-government organisations (NGOs). Without delving into details, it is enough for us to refer to three recent cases:
The first surfaced couple of months ago, when differences appeared within the security establishment between the Sahabak (the security Agency) and the Mossad (the national intelligence agency), on one side, and the military general staff on the other, regarding the deal of exchanging prisoners of war with Hezbollah and Hamas.
In spite of the fact that the decision on Hezbollah was thought to be taken by the political leadership, quite a few analysts assert that it was taken with the prior consent of the Chief of Staff and his lieutenants.
In his work published by the Tel Aviv University, The Army's Influence on the Transition Process from War to Peace - the Israeli Case Study, Dr Kobi Michael confirms that none of the scholars who came before him "had looked at the Israeli Army as being kept away from the political process. The Israeli public and the political leadership have exhibited great admiration in the security establishment, in general, and the military establishment, in particular".
The second instance began years ago, with the war against Lebanon in the summer of 2006, when the relationship between the political and the military echelons in Israel came to the forefront. After the end of the war, the subject gained multiple dimensions in the light of a new fact, namely that that war was the first, at least in the past 25 years, where two politicians, the Prime Minster, Ehud Olmert, and the Defence Minster, Amir Peretz, were in charge without having a military or security background. Indeed, it was stated that the military establishment was in complte charge of field events, receiving a green light from the political masters to run the operations without almost any accountability.
The third case came up when it was transpired that the previous Chief of Staff, Dan Halutz, benefiting from information he had access to due to his official position, sold his shares at the stock exchange a few days before the 2006 war broke out. This prompted questions that some generals prefer their personal interests to that of the public.
This event created a cleavage between the role of the military establishment and civil society, widening the Israeli internal social rift, according to Professor Yoram Peri in his work, Generals in the Cabinet Room: How the Military Shapes Israeli Policy.
Discussing the general criticism and disapproval of the role of the military, Amnon Shahak (the former director of the military intelligence and the Chief of Staff) wrote that "the relations between the army and civil society, which had always showed respect to the army and added to its power, has been shaken. Polarisation, absorption in the joys of life and opportunism have spoiled the national consensus and turned the military into a target for attacks".
Changing times
Shahak adds: "the time when the army was a source of pride and respect has gone, and people look at us now as either fools or millionaires. Today, the successful Israeli is one who makes gains at the stock market, invests in real estate and has stamps on his/her passport showing that he/she travels abroad for skiing, shopping and spending holidays".
On the same line, Professor Raobin Bidhutzoor believes "What distinguishes Israel from all other democracies is the almost complete absence of parliamentary supervision over the defence establishment. In no other democratic country does the military-security establishment enjoy complete autonomy, without even the semblance of a genuine attempt to supervise its activities".
This growing role of the military-security establishment is "natural" in the Israeli case as it resulted from their principle of "permanent expansion" at the expense of Arab and Palestinian land, and their permanent refusal of peace. Add to it the Zionist ideology and the Jewish cultural heritage that emphasise the importance of power and fighting to achieve the Zionist goals. This is why, it has always been said that "Israel is an army that has a state, not a state that has an army".
Professor As'ad Abdul Rahman is the Chairman of the Palestinian Encyclopedia.
Share this article
More from Columnists
More from Opinions
Popular in Opinions
-
Opinions
Speak Your Mind: World hunger
Who is responsible for world hunger? Are there any solution?
Opinion Editor's choice
-
Jobs vital to global recovery
Higher unemployment reduces purchasing power and revenues
-
Afghan people hold key to civil society
Besides stamping out corruption, the Karzai government must evolve new frameworks
-
Europe opts for the quiet life
The new leader of the European Council got his job because he's a technocratic choice
