I noticed that a few days went by without someone gloating on social media about how much Gadi Eisenkot is a "man of values".
One would think that something in the collective consciousness has matured since we were asked to sit nicely in the tribune and receive the former Chief of Staff with a nod from Givat and a wave of a handkerchief. Well, no - we are still mesmerized.
Otherwise, it is difficult to explain the indifference with which the decision of a man of such values is made to sign the members of his faction to a commitment not to defect "if they are not satisfied with the path led by the party leaders", as reported by Sefi Ovadia in "News 13".
And why wouldn't they be satisfied?
Because in a situation where Eisenkot will put the members of his list in a conscientious conflict with their world of values - which is exactly what is disintegrating the outgoing government - he will not be able to afford for them to allow themselves to be valuable, like him.
A government that is the General Staff
It's strange what happens to a moral person from the moment he enters politics: striving to totally neutralize the values of others.
Even surprisingly, Neve Darumi rightly claimed here this week that an officer of his rank does not trust his own leadership skills nor his leadership authority.
Isn't this the alphabet of commander-soldier relations, to say "after me" and "go ahead"?
But in the military system, values and conscience have no place in the judgment of soldiers, except in exceptional and extreme cases.
Even "statehood" was pushed as a "fundamental value" in the spirit of the IDF.
The main thing is to be valuable.
Eisenkrut, photo: Oren Ben Hakon
Because in the end - and Eisenkot also knows this - the "value" that pours like syrup from the chafahots in the officers' clubs is a cover for the reality where soldiers are under the control of commanders.
Everyone is surely motivated from the bottom of their hearts by an ethos of contribution, patriotism, brotherhood, partnership.
From Sh to Sh.
And this is said without a hint of irony.
In this there is no difference between Eisenkot the commander and Zvika the subordinate.
But the daily, organizational, bureaucratic, routine practice is 99% based on compliance - and sanctions.
"The officer says: Don't weigh your thoughts, but just walk!", Immanuel Kant summed it up in his famous treatise on the Enlightenment (translated by Yedidia Pels).
For better or worse, this is the system within which Eisenkot forged his character as an adult.
This is the work environment in which he was conducted and for which he grew.
Whatever his values may be, his mature personality was shaped by a system that trained him to expect his subordinates to obey, and gave him formal tools to hermetically impose his disobedience on them.
And what is Eisenkot's first political action in entering the nuclear core of the civil, open, free space?
To formulate the party equivalent to the orders of the General Staff, and to state that the Hafash who appeals the order of the day - will be removed from the state patrol.
Who knew it would be like this.
He imports the commanding ethos into politics, and you can be sure that his and Gantz's government will be more like the General Staff than an open democratic arena. The main thing is that it is values.
But what, actually, is that value?
Even in the political system, it is a sweet cover for something, perhaps similar to "statehood": a cover for the lack of a position, or unfortunately: the lack of courage to take an orderly, decisive, concrete ideological position - and to commit to practical steps to realize it.
Everyone praises Eisenkot and Gantz and the people they add to their lists for "valuability".
All of them are very valuable people, what characterizes them is ideological flexibility that disturbs peace.
It has been proven that they live in peace both here and there.
Positive characters, but neutral, devoid of opinion.
Lapid likes to call it "center", because he longs to be liked by everyone.
Shaked and Handel call it "unity", because there is no one left on either side to believe them.
Gantz-Saar-Eizenkot call it "statehood", because something still has to hold the marriage of convenience between Elkin of the complete Land of Israel and Gantz of "conflict reduction".
The guardianship rule
Look at how the figures who lead and who are nominated to continue leading us are unable to stand behind a concrete agenda.
It is enough to say "something of value".
Prime Minister Lapid's only public contribution to the crisis that might shut down school on September 1 was a tweet. "I don't like the way they talk about the old teachers," he wrote, "Israeli society should support them." Values, but what is his practical position in relation to the crisis and from what economic worldview is it derived? You have exaggerated. Eisenkot and Gantz are talking about "internal resilience" and "conflict reduction". Very beautiful indeed, but what does that mean tomorrow morning or another year? Get a chapha.
Lapid's unprincipled populism meets the commanding ethos of Gantz and Eisenkot: it is enough that they are "good people" and that they "came to change".
You don't need to know more than that.
Did you want a "normal government that works and doesn't make noise" and a coalition that "leaves the issues in dispute for later"?
You have received a leadership avenue that hides its positions from you and demands that you trust it - because it is valuable.
Just like you trust the IDF. Israel has a lot of problems and challenges? "These guardians are already taking care of that, who have received the supervision over them for the most part." Kant again. This is the leadership profile of the new generation of the Israeli elite. Guardians.
Don't ask what it says about them, ask what it says about how they perceive you.
And Kant's answer is clear: an unenlightened public, which prefers to be allowed to live its life in peace.
small head
The people who promise to save democracy are leading it into a startling regression.
First his heart was aversion to democracy in Likud, and now panic is being created from an ideological polemic "because it is divisive".
This fits perfectly with Gantz's severe proposal to limit the opposition's ability to overthrow the government through parliamentary tools.
This revolution of the colonels, whose propagandists crudely compared Netanyahu to Erdogan, strives for "stability" control - through Erdogan's means.
This is anti-democracy, and it is anti-enlightenment.
were we wrong
We will fix it!
If you found an error in the article, we would appreciate it if you shared it with us
