The case of Elazar Stern first reflects the party creature called "There is a Future."
As everyone has seen in the last four months, Yesh Atid is a Labor Party.
An institutional oligarchic body, which roams the corridors in a suit of stateliness but is nothing more than a work arrangement for exes from the fossilized establishments, having been ejected from the system.
Elazar Stern was a mediocre champion.
Imagine he was also a chief education officer.
A person fluent in the language of values, but not necessarily living by them.
The speed with which he fell on his way to the post of chairman of the agency shows that beyond any question about his moral omission from the past, there is not a single person who would be willing to lie down for him on the fence. Stern will or will not chair the agency.In an organic democratic party, which grows from the bottom up and is not a party of one strong man, a puppet ruler whose anonymous circle pulls his strings, a person who reached the top would lean on public support.Then Stern would not chair the agency.
equalizer.
The only one who suffers is the work sorter himself.
He is now stuck with Stern in an inexhaustible role - the intelligence minister - and what to do with Eli Avidar who was promised to him.
Minister Elazar Stern: "I have never made a single complaint about sexual harassment", Photo: Oren Ben Hakon
So here we need to remember how easily personalities like Stern or Yaakov Perry or Ofer Shelach and Shai Firon were absorbed into the Labor Arrangement Party and how easily they were blocked or ejected.
As a matter of fact, Stern was guided by the angry female lobbyists and the critical media, when he fired unbelievably rudely from the Knesset podium at MK Miri Regev.
No one stood up to defend her honor.
No one wondered who this MK was who spoke so harshly against a colleague.
And another woman who, like him, wore IDF uniforms with respectable officer ranks.
Galant affair, upside down
But Stern's expulsion from the gates of the Agency building in Jerusalem raises another issue: it can be defined as the Galant affair upside down.
If because of a shredder in the mists of the past he cannot serve as chairman of the agency, why do the agency's moral standards not apply to a minister in the Israeli government?
If he can not serve in the agency, he can also not be the intelligence minister.
Just as it was argued at the time that Galant could not serve as chief of staff. But if the ethical criterion did not prevent him from being commander-in-chief of the Southern Command and deputy chief of staff, then on an ethical level the requirements from a general cannot be less than those of chief of staff.
In the bottom line, the very candidacy of Elazar Stern as chairman of the agency marks the devaluation of the position. At the time, Uzi Narkis released his homeland and conquered Jerusalem.
