Beyond the basic principle of civil-military relations in a democracy regarding the absolute subordination of the army to the elected political echelon, there is a second essential principle: the absolute prohibition on military involvement in politics.
The logic is fundamentally simple and rooted in the fear of abuse of the power given to the military by virtue of the authorization given to it by the elected political echelon and on behalf of the people to exercise the state monopoly on organized violence. The basic question has always been: "Who will protect the state, democracy and the people from their defenders – the army? How can a democratic state ensure that weapons and monopoly on the use of organized violence are never turned against it?" Different models of civil-military relations have developed in different democratic countries, but what they all have in common is absolute adherence to both principles.
The military personnel in the reserves can explain with signs and wonders that their decision to employ the "doomsday weapon", the one handed over to them by virtue of their military position and status, and by virtue of the ability given to them to harm the army's fitness or readiness, is not against the policy of an elected government, but against regime change and against the threat to substantive democracy in Israel from an elected government. This does not, and cannot justify, this move. After all, there are quite a few other decisions that a government in Israel can make, which will be interpreted by concerned citizens as a threat to the characteristics of the existing regime and to democracy as such. Interpretation, however justified it may be in the eyes of its claimants, cannot permit the destructive inflictions imposed on the military in a democratic state.
True, the State of Israel is unlike other democracies when it comes to the threat environment in which it exists. It is true that the security threats imposed on the State of Israel are severe, and some will say, probably rightly, that they are even existential threats. It is true that because of these unique characteristics, the army in Israel plays a particularly important, central and essential role, but did we therefore seek the army as an authoritative interpreter of the essence of democracy and its gatekeeper? Wouldn't the current interpretation of various groups, important as they may be, from among the reserve forces that use their military force – and there is no alternative interpretation other than the use of military force – become the basis for justifying the interpretation in the next case, and perhaps with regard to the legislative intentions of another government and other reservists?
Since the IDF, and certainly its significant and unique formations such as the Air Force, relies on the reserve army, and its operational capability, such as its readiness, is influenced by the readiness of the reserve system and its level of motivation for service, the decision and the fact of the reservists have a direct impact on the entire army. Their actions undermine operational readiness, readiness and cohesion. But worst of all, the seeds of politicization, divisiveness and camping were sown within the army itself. This politicization undermines the pillars of the army and the civil-military relationship in Israel, and threatens the service model as a whole, since the effects will inevitably be seen both in the regular army (permanent and compulsory) and among NCOs in preparation for enlistment. It weakens Israel's substantive democracy and makes protest essentially militaristic. If the opinion of the commentators of democracy is comfortable with the decisions of an elected government, democracy will exist; The commentators in uniform are uncomfortable – there will be no democracy, and an elected government will not be able to fulfill its days or duties by virtue of its decision-making authority.
Protest against government decisions and policies is an existential necessity for democracy, but it can only take place when the protest is civil in essence and the army, even when reservists acting as such, remains in its barracks, and otherwise who will be served. Therefore, the reservists must protest against what they perceive as a danger to democracy, but their protest must converge to the boundaries of civil protest, and to it alone.
Wrong? We'll fix it! If you find a mistake in the article, please share with us