The chorus of commissioners and superintendents of the police, who predict the death of democracy in general and the death of the Israel Police in particular, has now also been joined by Roni Alsheich: "Everyone is talking about the democratic and value aspects, I would like to focus on the professional aspect," he wrote yesterday on this stage, warning against "an acute diversion of resources , and neglecting issues or areas that will immediately become islands of crime... Sectors will feel attacked, and the result will be an increase in crime and a loss of trust."
But wait, isn't this an accurate description of the functioning of the Israel Police and its consequences today?
The truth is that the lack of authoritative civilian control over the police plays a decisive role in its deterioration.
There is not a single example of the police in a democratic country that does not have civilian oversight.
In Germany, they went even further because of the memory of the past, and they appoint as police chiefs citizen politicians, while the deputy is a professional.
The police today is a crumbling body, unprofessional and immersed up to its neck in politics.
Public trust in him tends to zero.
He is destroyed from the inside, abuses both his policemen and the citizens under his supervision, and suffers from a severe relevance gap, and the results of the Arab uprising in May 2021 did not make him sober either.
"People are trying to create a feeling that the south is on fire," the commissioner claimed at the government meeting on July 24, "but the situation today is better than ever, clear and smooth."
Therefore, these cries of distress from senior police officers remind me of the crew of a ship that with abject unprofessionalism ran her aground, but feel free to stand on a nearby rock and shout about the quality of those trying to rescue her and their work methods.
This unhealthy situation of the lack of supervision is the result of a historical outcome: in order to establish a centralized central government in a difficult period of state formation, David Ben-Gurion preferred to control the police directly, without mediation, through the appointment of a loyal party member - Yehezkel Sahar - who remained in his position for ten years Innocence, and the appointment of a weakened, comfortable and non-dominant police minister.
At the same time, he trained his son, Amos Ben-Gurion, to be a commissioner. He appointed him commander of the Tel Aviv district and deputy inspector general, and gave him manpower and resources that were not given to other districts.
The result was growing corruption in the police, which "exploded" in the volunteer line affair.
Both the General Security Service and the court were mobilized to help the leader's son, but at the end of the affair the former Commissioner Sahar was convicted of giving false testimony in court to protect Amos Ben-Gurion, and the latter retired from the police. What would have happened if as a counterweight to the Commissioner Sahar was acting as a minister who has authority, and who may also bear responsibility?
And finally, it is worth memorizing the words of the former minister Avigdor Kahalani, who - unlike other ministers - knew how to subordinate the police to him:
"A minister should be involved. He should know where to step in... even the public demands that the minister be involved. After all, every time they demand that the minister resign because of something the police do..."
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