"Breaking the silence" of former chief of staff Gadi Izenkot over the weekend began similarly to that of his predecessors. Everyone is always worried, very worried. But not about military issues; only social. He is trying to ignite the territories, and the Bedouin in the south are igniting the Negev. But what worries Gadi Izenkot, the 21st IDF Chief of Staff, is the internal cohesion of the State of Israel.
And immediately a quote is brought from someone who was actually one of those responsible for these security failures. Izenkot: "I think the rift in Israeli society and the mutual slash, the decline in governance, the decline in trust in state institutions, in the courts, in crime - all of these are the greatest threat to the future of the state."
Izenkot is not alone. Retiring chiefs of staff, generals and GSS chiefs are usually "concerned generals." Not from the horrible military reality they left behind, but from the happenings on the pitches in which they had no touch, responsibility or understanding. Their insistence on discussing these in particular is whitewashing, an escape from responsibility and control of the media agenda. This will not present them with the difficulties that really need to be asked of them: about the gap between their status as security guards and the insecurity they left behind. After the assassination of Rabin, Carmi Gilon locked himself in as a "professor of morality" as part of the "must investigate the incitement" campaign he launched against the Shamgar Commission, which was responsible for investigating only the security failures. Gillon branded himself as a trustee of the ethics discourse, an expert on rhetorical relations and political behavior, spoke on political stages and was hosted in every arena as the subject of the message that "words can kill."
But just as Izenkot did not deter Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran or the pro-Palestinian elements who infiltrated the Negev, so did Gilon not fail against Yigal Amir as a rhetorician. He failed against him as head of the GSS. His self-branding as a "process-concerned expert," rather than a (failing) personal security expert, only helped him not to be required to ask difficult questions, but to become a sought-after lecturer. What is known as shame to fame. He was even elected head of a local council and made his home an impressive business career.
After the Yom Kippur War, the concept was adopted that the blame for the war should be sought in Israeli society.
Words like "arrogance," "arrogance," "militarism" began to explain what led to the horrific conduct.
Did not inspect a house in the claimant army, but inspected a house in the company.
And since then - the chiefs of staff have changed, a battle replaces a battle (Mishlag, through Second Lebanon to the Wall Guard);
A committee replaces a committee;
Generals are released;
And in the absence of military achievements they prefer to impersonate sociologists who analyze social situations.
In any case, they studied degrees in the social sciences (since there is no academy of war sciences).
All that is left is - as Aviv Kochavi did well - to use a public relations campaign to paint a term as identified with the Chief of Staff of Victory. But when he is released he will surely want to be interviewed about the state of education or health. For those who are social?
Were we wrong?
Fixed!
If you found an error in the article, we'll be happy for you to share it with us
