Prime Minister Lapid's arrogant skipping of the Knesset on the way to approving a controversial strategic agreement on the eve of an election, and the shameful reasoning for it ("The opposition is promiscuous and therefore there will be no vote"), were marked, and rightly so, as another indication of the poor governing culture that his government fosters. But the more human damage to democratic norms Pertains to the role played by the security establishment in the political field.In one week, the agreement with Lebanon went from settling an economic-bureaucratic dispute that could have waited ten years, to a panic-preventing action to thwart a war in the immediate term.
We need to recap the sequence of events for a moment to get an impression of the dimensions of the cynicism: towards the end of September, the first news began to flow about a dramatic rapprochement in the talks between Israel and Lebanon, mediated by the United States.
By the beginning of October it was already out there, as were the rumors of a quick and sudden Israeli withdrawal from all of its previous demands.
The reaction in public opinion was catastrophic: the commentators and the former in the studios did not help, and the labeling of every critical voice, including from the political opposition, as "Hezbollah's message page" did not help.
It was clear that it would not go that way.
A brief history of spin
This is when things started to go wrong for Lapid.
On October 3, Interior Minister Shaked announced that she would demand a vote in the Knesset.
Justice Minister Sa'ar did not demand a vote, but announced that the agreement "will pass in the Knesset".
Squeaks in the coalition.
At the same time, perhaps in response to Lapid's early briefings to the media, spokeswoman Gali Beharve-Miara clarified that a little more than express approval in the cabinet would be required. This weekend there was already a feeling that the agreement was running aground.
Then, in spectacular cosmic timing, an "explosion" occurred in the negotiations: the Lebanese hardened their positions, and a "senior political official" in Israel threatened that if Lebanon exaggerated its demands, it "can forget about the document."
Against the background of the "explosion", Defense Minister Benny Gantz announced that "one must prepare for a scenario of escalation on the northern border".
You were able to read in the media all the constant turmoil: emergency discussions, heads of authorities in the north expressing concern, the whole procedure.
Israel - and its citizens - went on alert.
Happy holiday.
Things went wrong.
Lapid and Gantz,
A short time later, a blitz of leaks and briefings from the cabinet meeting began, and Israeli citizens were bombarded with quotes from the heads of the defense establishment regarding the urgent necessity of the agreement.
You could see running headlines on the TV screens: "Everyone is unanimous in favor of signing the agreement" which will "dramatically reduce the risk of war".
The positions of the Chief of Staff, the head of the Shin Bet and the head of the Mossad, with their photos, appeared in the subtitles of the sequence in the studios one after the other.
Unanimously.
Everyone.
Many quotes found their way into Yesh Atid propaganda.
It may not be possible to take photos for the campaign with soldiers, but it is possible to produce graphics with the photos and quotes of the head of the MLA Hulta and the former champions from Rome, Eiland Vidlin.
At about the same time, the document submitted by the Mishnimin to the Ombudsman was published, where two classified opinions submitted to the Ombudsman's office during the past week on behalf of the Defense and Foreign Ministries were described, in which the reasons for the special urgency that emerged in the special circumstances were detailed.
"Failure to sign the agreement in the very near future could lead to serious consequences for Israel's national security", N-Ko-Da.
And now, when there is a consensus that this agreement in general is intended to prevent a clear and immediate danger of war, it is also clear that whoever dares to criticize it is a dangerous and irresponsible war monger - especially if his name is Netanyahu.
From then on, everything flowed smoothly again, from the ombudsman above to the Twitter below, with smooth communication and a guaranteed signature, and everything waves a handkerchief and everyone admits that the deal is successful. Nevertheless, we conclude: the negotiations are running on a quagmire called public opinion, suddenly an "explosion" in contacts, The army is instructed to prepare for escalation, the security establishment explains that the agreement will thwart war, secret opinions are submitted to the Ombudsman - and the traffic jam is released.
Governmental ultimatum
God forbid I accuse the Minister of Defense of exerting psychological pressure on the Israeli public, who reacted in part with hostility to the agreement that was passionately promoted by the defense establishment.
But putting a country on alert from a security escalation on the eve of a holiday - this is an action extreme enough to make one wonder, at the very least, if there is no degree of justice in Netanyahu's claim that the agreement was signed under threat.
I also do not want to accuse the security establishment of blatant and biased interference in the political dispute in Israel on the eve of elections.
But a situation in which ex-members pop up with a message page about Win-Win even before the main points of the agreement have been published, and decisive quotes from all the heads of the defense establishment are injected into the stream of information, leaves no choice but to suspect that the defense establishment is mobilizing to promote a political interest.
Not to mention a consensus that raises fears of organizational indoctrination.
History proves that a dogmatic and monolithic security system that suppresses internal criticism should be feared.
The pro-active promotion moves of the agreement were not the best hour of the Israeli security establishment, at least not at the public level.
Whether she was recruited from above or volunteered - the impression received is the same: the security establishment has never been contaminated with such blatant and trending politicization.
In the final reckoning, Israeli public opinion was conducted on the eve of the elections under a surprising governmental ultimatum, that the security establishment was complicit in Pompomo: either an agreement now, or war tomorrow.
Fact - there is a standby.
Fact - there are classified opinions.
They may not have been bitten by a dog, but they were and even more so when bitten by a shark.
This is how public opinion is neutralized and civil criticism is delayed, using the method of the hiding under the flag syndrome during an emergency.
The cannons did not thunder, but the muses were required to be silent.
And most of them were silent.
By the way, Lapid skipping the Knesset is a small amount of money.
>Register now for the election conference of "Israel Hayom"<<
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