For those of you who harbor quaint notions about Israeli democracy, tonight’s post should further disabuse you of your illusions. In most western democracies, the legislative branch of government exercises some oversight of military and intelligence functions. In the U.S., this includes House and Senate committees charged with reviewing, approving and funding the U.S. military and various intelligence agencies, both overseas and domestic. Though there is always a tenseness in this relationship and the executive branch at times resists such oversight, the legislative bodies have ultimate authority and can use their subpoena power if their rights to oversee their charges are rejected.
Not so in Israel, where civilian bodies, including both the Knesset and even the prime minister, often exercise nominal control of these government functions. I’ve reported in the recent past, that Defense Minister Ehud Barak refused to allow chief of staff Benny Gantz to testify to a Knesset committee about Israel’s covert programs to contain Iran. Now, none other than the prime minister himself has directed the Shabak chief to refuse to appear before the same committee to address questions about the Eilat terror attack. Yoram Cohen, Shabak director, sent an underling in his place who also refused to discuss the terror attack when asked point-blank by the committee, which is chaired by former chief of staff Shaul Mofaz.
Haaretz has only reported the latter fact, that a Shabak officer refused to answer questions about Eilat. In truth, my own well-placed source confirms that Netanyahu refused to allow Cohen to even appear before Mofaz’ committee. Perhaps one should even question the Israeli media itself as to why it hasn’t reported that Netanyahu actually refused to allow Israel’s most senior intelligence officer to testify before the Knesset. Is my source the only one who knows this happened? Or do other reporters know the truth and can’t or won’t report it? Frankly, I don’t know the answer. I only know that Haaretz and other outlets reporting the story are only reporting half of it, which in turn does a disservice to the Israeli public and Israeli democracy (or what’s left of it).
Ynet indirectly affirms the report of my source by quoting Avi Dichter, himself a former Shabak chief and now Knesset MK, as saying that when he was its director he appeared before the Knesset committee Mofaz chairs. Maariv quotes Dichter using extremely harsh language, labelling the decision a “gag order” placed upon the Shabak director and chief of IDF intelligence.
Clearly, this is an attempt, so far quite successful, by the prime minister to deny a legitimate legislative body oversight of the IDF and intelligence bodies and to review failures when they occur. If such a thing happened in America, there would be immediate subpoenas filed to compel Cohen to testify and the matter would end up in court. Eventually, even if the president dug his heels in hard (which rarely happens, these things are usually ironed out), the court would likely find the executive would have to bend to Congress’ will–at least in terms of appearing and answering questions, if not changing policy.
What is truly poisonous about this is that it leaves the executive to police itself and learn from its own mistakes without the benefit of the people’s elected representatives being able to intercede and learn what happened in events like Eilat and how to avoid them in future. A society whose legislators are bound and gagged when it comes to exercising this function is a society in which the blind lead the blind. And it’s no surprise that such a nation will repeat its mistakes over and over because no one can come forward from the legislature and say: No, that didn’t work, you’re not going to try that again. You’re going to try something else.
I’ve posted here that the Israeli approach to the Eilat attack was a fashlah of massive proportions. When things like this happen you need legislative oversight to uncover what went wrong and prevent it from happening again. Such activity by the Knesset would reassure the people that someone, somewhere is concerned about the welfare of the nation. When the prime minister prevents this, it will only erode confidence that the military and intelligence circles can learn from their mistakes.
Can you imagine the aftermath of 9/11 and Pres. Bush refusing to coöperate with the 9/11 Commission? This is something like what Bibi has done in this case. He’s thumbed his nose at Mofaz and told him: I don’t owe you nuthin’. Losing sight, of course, of the fact that in a true democracy the leader does in fact owe a great deal to the legislature. In a real democracy, the legislature could turn around and reject the next appropriation bill for the agency refusing to coöperate. The only problem is that in Israel this type of independent behavior is unheard of. No Knesset member would dream of rejecting an IDF or intelligence appropriation. In fact, these budgets are so hush-hush that there are hardly any members who know what’s in them. They ratify them in a pro forma manner with hardly any discussion or debate.
Of course, there are calls for cutting the defense budget heard when belts need to be tightened. But invariably, all it takes is one terror attack for those voices to be quashed, but good.
You wrote: “Not so in Israel”, while you say that “Ehud Barak refused to allow chief of staff Benny Gantz to testify to a Knesset committee…”.
Yet, when one reads the article you referred to, one see that in spite the reservation of Barak, the defense minister, Gantz was forced to appear and testify before Knesset committee.
So the full truth show real democracy in action, where the Knesset over-rule (and have power over) the minister and not the other way around.
The statement by Shaul Mofaz, (chairman of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee) that the prime minister and the defense minister’s decision to censor the Shin Bet security service and Military Intelligence reports before the subcommittee caused….
“deliberately and significantly damage the subcommittee’s ability to actively supervise Israel’s security and intelligence bodies” is another canary in the coalmine of Israeli democracy.
Despite the statement by the Ministry of Defense that…. “Intelligence and operational briefings of events take place first inside the operational units and then among the intelligence bodies,” and that …”The results are presented to the IDF chief of staff and only then to the Knesset subcommittees. That is how it always was and it will remain so in the future.”……..which is correct in essence, it is also a convenient ruse to cover up or delay publication of facts about the terrorist attack which if revealed would be personally embarrassing to both the prime minister and the defense minister.
This is another example of the increasing corruption that is now increasingly apparent in Israel.
This atmosphere of “anything goes” and if you can get away with it then why not do it
has also crept into the judiciary.
This rampant “bending of the rules” cannot end well if not addressed.
Shaul Mofaz should call for a vote of no confidence in the current government because of this.
Parenthetical to the main point of this post, but
> Can you imagine the aftermath of 9/11 and Pres. Bush refusing to coöperate with the 9/11 Commission?
Why yes, I can. Bush refused to testify separately from Cheney. And, except for the usual chorus of left-wing journalists and bloggers, nobody made any fuss. (The speculation was that he didn’t want to let on that it was Cheney, not the president, who ordered the shooting down of Flight 93.)
“Your own well placed source.” Is that the same source cited by Tuesday’s New York Times? Shame on you.
How could a fellow sitting in a federal half way house in Maryland report to me on the doings of a Knesset committee in Jerusalem? Or do you think Shamai has magical powers?
When you realized this guy was a serious felon did you turn him in?
He must have had great political connections 20 months in prison for the serious felonies he committed was far too little.
Goodbye.
Amazing how mean-spirited & just plain evil these people can be.
There is a glaring fault with the dominant government system in the West. Democracy ensures everyone is equal, so no one can give orders or criticise. A decent command structure breaks down.
Since Israel is acting under the emergency regulations of the British Mandate, the Knesset is not sovereign. The government, including the state security apparatus, is the sovereign. This was in fact stated clearly by the former (I think) Shabak head, who said publicly that one of the goals of Shabak is to prevent changes to the form of government, including by democratic means.
As a matter of fact, all state security apparatuses work under the same principle whether they have a legal basis for that (as they do in Israel) or not. The British state security agency published a “scenario” for the next decades, including growing public disaffection with the political system, essentially under the assumption that its role will be to contain and to disrupt public protests. The Pentagon’s, NSA’s, and FBI’s practice, of course confirm the same mindset.
So who’s the sovereign?
Mofaz would use the opening to politicize the information, none of these guys can keep their mouth shut. I am surprised that Mr. Silversteing= can pen this “critical” screed, knowing well that the failed Kadima handled all manner of state security in the most abominable manner, shaming the country during the war with lebanon. Now they are preparing to absorb the former and disgraced Chief of Staff, an ace pilot and a small time stocks seller on the day the war bean, into the ranks of this imploding party. Mofaz, who was nominated himself to become chief of staff because Bibi regarded him as capable, a memeber of the unit that went under the command of his brother Yoni to Entebee, 1976, proved to be a second rate chief of staff, unpopular politico and a small time grifter. Tikun Olam is in the habt of finding warts, points to criticize Israel and the Likood aparatchniks. When the Tikun’s darlings, the Israeli left and kadima were taking the country to the toilet no such criticism was heard on these pages. Israel is a unique sitauation, trying to equate American norms, rules, customes and traditions, is not suitable.
“In most western democracies, the legislative branch of government exercises some oversight of military and intelligence functions.”
Not quite correct. In many parliamentary democracies, including Canada and the UK, there is almost nothing like the oversight system of the US separated-powers polity.
In a strictly formal sense, there is more oversight in Israel than in most countries, because the relevant committees are often–as in this case–chaired by an opposition MK. Note that I said “strictly formal.” I am not challenging any point in the post other than the one I quoted.