The approval of the appointment of Hertz Halevi was expected.
In the absence of any information or claims against him, the Advisory Committee for Senior Appointments had no reason to disqualify or delay him.
Committee member Talia Einhorn did indeed vote against the appointment, due to the proximity to the elections and the fact that it is being carried out by a transitional government, but it was approved by a majority of votes while it was made clear that the committee's authority is not to refer to the question of the timing of the appointment, but to his competence in terms of purity of character.
Einhorn is a respected jurist, but this time she was wrong.
The appointment of a Chief of Staff is anything but political. Subjecting him to the chaotic political agenda - and by implication to the whims of politicians - will harm the incumbent, the position itself, and the security of the country. It is enough to look at the multitude of burning fronts (Yosh, Lebanon, Iran, Ukraine) and the multitude of challenges The urgent (manpower, budget, motivation, the condition of the land army), to understand that those who ask for a postponement - in a reality where no one knows if and when a stable government will be established - sentence the IDF to paralysis and endanger the stability of the most critical system for our lives here.
The vote against the appointment.
Prof. Talia Einhorn, photo: Eric Sultan
As is customary in our districts, even before the appointment is completed (which requires the approval of the government) someone has already been found who will threaten to swing an ax at him.
This time it's MK Simcha Rothman (Religious Zionism), who in an interview with Radio 103FM said that "Any official can be fired by the government.
This is part of the meaning of a government and a change of government." Rotman did clarify that "each case needs to be discussed on its merits", but the message from his words is clear: if the chief of staff does not work "with us", we will consider firing him.
This is a dangerous way of thinking, which is typical of regimes other than the one practiced in Israel.
The Chief of Staff does not work for the government. He is subordinate to it, but serves the public. The government sets policies for him, but his duty of loyalty is to the public - without any political connection or affiliation. Furthermore: The Chief of Staff does follow instructions, but he must enjoy freedom Absolute thought and speech.
His role is not to please the government, but to set a mirror before it.
Not to applaud her, but to honestly paint her a fair and reliable picture of risks and possibilities, challenges and opportunities.
If he does not do so, if he blinks or becomes polite - he will sin against his duty and sin against the public.
With the exception of particularly exceptional cases, the governments make sure to adopt the recommendations of the security forces (of which the IDF, headed by the Chief of Staff, is the most senior), and hide behind them.
It is enough to glance at Israel's lack of strategy in almost every possible arena, to understand how important it is for the Chief of Staff to be an anchor of professionalism, discretion and intellectual independence, and how dangerous it would be if he thought or feared that his tenure was subject to the nature of the recommendations/decisions he would provide to the level above him.
Public support is needed
The tenure of the outgoing Chief of Staff, Aviv Kochavi, was to a large extent a victim of the political chaos in which Israel finds itself. Five election cycles, long years without a budget, and policy - or the lack of policy - changes, along with escalating statements for election purposes that each time threatened to drag the region into conflagration If that wasn't enough, the IDF was also beaten by rabbis, self-interested politicians, and even treasury officials who wanted to take advantage of the opportunity to score a few more points (or shekels) in battles over the budget, conditions and pensions.
His tenure was largely a victim of the political chaos Israel is in.
Chief of Staff Aviv Kochavi, photo: Yossi Zeliger
Those who want Levy to succeed in his position should give him the conditions to succeed in it.
The first of these is stability.
The second is appropriate tools, from the budget to legislation that is required in many areas.
The third is public support: in encouraging recruitment (of men and women), in helping servants and in benefits for those released, in encouraging reserve service and finding ways to keep the best permanently (and certainly by stopping the obscene custom of turning them into hedonists who use the public purse).
The fourth is a clear and enforceable policy in every subject and sector.
And the fifth is moves that will keep the IDF at the heart of the consensus.
Only those who have landed from another planet will believe that it is possible for the Levite to receive all of these, and even some of them.
It's a shame, because on the face of it he has all the conditions to succeed.
His job card is full, and he performed most of the positions with great success.
He knows how to think in the box, but also to get out of it when necessary.
He is not afraid to express criticism or an opinion contrary to that of his commanders (in uniform or in citizenship), but to align and carry out the moment a decision is made (even if against his opinion).
Halevi is aware of the difficulties that await him.
He will spend the two months and a bit remaining until January 1, when he will be promoted to the rank of Major General, in preparations, conversations, thoughts and plans (minus the time he spends in his position as Deputy Chief of Staff, because in the Israeli dream he is carrying it out, instead of preparing with a quiet mind to his next position.) It is doubtful whether he will enter the chief of staff's office in Boom: that is not his character.
The changes he will make - and he will make - will be made in motion and over time.
The public will certainly examine Halevi in the light of the battlefields.
The activity of the security forces in the "Breakwater" operation, photo: IDF spokesman
The public will surely examine it in the light of the battlefields: the attacks in the West Bank, the peace in the Gaza Strip, the tensions with Hezbollah in Lebanon and the attacks in Syria. The political echelon should examine it in a different way: the deterrence it provides against the enemies on all fronts, and the readiness of the army to provide a decision on each of them, given the need. Within the IDF, he will also be tested on his ability to bring good news in terms of personnel, motivation and conditions, as well as his ability to leave the system out of the political debates, while standing by solid value principles on a variety of issues - from the purity of weapons, through the explosive combination of religion, women and warfare, to attempts of various parties to infiltrate the IDF and assimilate their messages into it.
Until the Yom Kippur War, the IDF was the entire consensus, and its commanders - sons of God. It is good that Israel has rid itself of this. The IDF commanders are also accountable, and it is legitimate (and even required) to criticize them.
But this criticism must be factual, and free from politics and interests.
Today's Israel is not like that, and it's a shame.
This minimum of fairness should be allowed to the IDF, and to its leader.
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