Yasher Koach, Scott, for a level-headed analysis of this (and other) situations, reflecting real Kiddush HaShem - rather than attempts, by some, to manipulate Judaism into justifying their own craven base desires!
As Joe Spraragen has already commented, your moral and realpolitik clarity are excellent, and very much needed in Israel today.
I can only echo Joe's wish that others exercise independent analysis as well!
Ben-Gvir has not served in the IDF. He doesn’t understand the repercussions of war since he wasn’t in one himself, nor takes time to understand from those who spend their whole lives protecting Israel. Which is terribly unfortunate considering the community he represents has suffered many casualties in this war.
I think a parallel can be made to the campus protesters who have never served in a military capacity who think that an army can wage a war without civilian casualties.
Do you say that about Joe Biden the president of the US? He also didn’t serve in the military. Neither did Obama or Clinton or FDR. Why do you apply this particular test only to Ben Gvir?
Hi Marty - I second what Sim said, and want to point out that I didn't say that the problem is that he didn't serve in the military; the problem is the combination of not having served, having no security experience or specialized knowledge, and simultaneously offering simplistic solutions and reductionist slogans. I do not believe that someone needs to have been in the military to make military decisions; but lacking that, as well as experience and knowledge, should lead a levelheaded individual to humility and nuance and a recognition that things are not simple. Ben Gvir, to his discredit, does the opposite.
Every politician offers simplistic slogans, that is the nature of politics. Is peace now a nuanced slogan? Bring them home now? You simply don’t like his politics so you disparage them. I don’t see a single politician in Israel (or anywhere else) offering nuanced slogans.
The demand to go to war is very different from other slogans (and I agree, Peace Now is a foolish slogan, too). I'm guessing that you, like me, have children in the Israeli army in harm's way. Are you really willing to take chances with their lives - after you acknowledge that Israel has not truly won a war in decades - with someone whose strategy is effectively "Just do it"? Did Israel not succeed in those wars because our leaders are too scared or foolish? Or perhaps they know things that Ben Gvir doesn't, or chooses to ignore? I don't mean that Israel should not go to war, either; I don't have the knowledge to know what the price would be, and how to balance that against the potential gains. But I'm pretty sure that Ben Gvir doesn't either.
Why? Peace now is just as dangerous if not more. It has led to the current situation.
Let’s take a realistic look at what the defense establishment has advocated in the past 20 years.
Disengagement- they were all for it. Shaul Mofaz who was defense minister at the time and a former chief of staff went on record after October 7th that the disengagement was the correct thing to do.
Lebanon war 2006 - looking back at the military’s performance can anyone say it was good? Did the war achieve any goals?
Various operations against Hamas in the last 10 years - Again the defense establishment never wanted to destroy Hamas, they always pushed for limited operations. The end result was October 7th.
How about the defense establishment’s neglect of the ground forces? Their slogan was a small technological army? How did that work out? October 7th blew that conception up.
Even the current war has not exactly been a great success. It’s 8 months and we still haven’t defeated Hamas a small terrorist group. Who is making defense policy. People like Benny Gantz, Eisenkot, Netanyahu, the current chief of staff. They have failed. After 8 months there are still 120 hostages in captivity. After 8 months the north of the country is unlivable with tens of thousands of people still unable to go home.
So I ask you seriously Scott, can you say that the defense establishment in Israel has done a good job in the last 20 years? So maybe it’s time for some new ideas from people like Ben Gvir.
Ronald Reagan won an election with a very simplistic question. Are you better off than you were 4 years ago?
The left has basically controlled defense and foreign policy for the last 30 years even though there have been Likud governments. So let’s ask that question. Are we better off than we were before Oslo, the withdrawal from Lebanon, the withdrawal from Gaza? And the answer is clearly and unequivocally no. Thousands of people have been killed. Rockets on all parts of the country have become commonplace. And of course October 7th and its aftermath.
What do you want to do? Continue with the same defense experts who have gotten us to this point? Continue with the same policies that have gotten us here? After a disaster like October 7th don’t you think something should change?
I didn’t say he didn’t pass a certain test. I said he himself doesn’t understand, like the lefties he despises, that wars aren’t simple. There are many who didn’t serve in the military who can make decisions based on level headed thinking. This includes taking advice from the Chiefs of Staff, not disparaging ever single Chief of Staff.
Given the lack of success of the recent chiefs of staff why shouldn’t he disparage them? Let’s take a real look at their accomplishments or lack of them. When is the last time Israel actually won a war? Not recently. The war in Lebanon in 2006 was certainly not a victory neither were any of the operations against Hamas.
How far back are you going to go with COS or even DM? Is it because some of them are now political opponents now and therefore they were utter failures?
Israel hasn’t conclusively won a war or had an Entebbe like operation since Begin was elected. Is it all his fault?
Disparaging isn’t helping simply for morale, and because even though they made mistakes that lead to here they are still among the nest qualified to be in their position.
Plus, even if you think the current brass should be removed. Do you honestly think Ben-Gvir would be better? His dumb tweet of “Hamas ❤️ Biden” was a boon for Hamas and bad for Israel. I can’t imagine what he would do or say if he was PM and would isolate Israel.
I’m sorry. At some point you have to evaluate your strategy and see if it’s working. Can you say that the defense strategy of the last x years, you pick x, has worked? I certainly can’t. By any measure the defense establishment failed miserably on October 7th and before and hasn’t done much better since. That is the bottom line. It’s 8 months after October 7th and there are still 120 hostages. It’s 8 months after October 7th and the north is burning and 100,000 Israelis are homeless. So yes when your strategy has utterly failed you need to reevaluate and come up with a new one.
You claim they are still best suited, I would disagree. They are set in their ways which HAVENT WORKED. It’s time for new leadership and new ideas in the defense establishment.
Here is one example. Iron dome is a great technical success and a terrible strategic failure. The defense establishment took iron dome and used it to justify their policies against Hamas. Since the Hamas rockets did little damage because iron dome intercepted them they used that to justify not destroying Hamas. That led directly to October 7th.
You ask do I think Ben Gvir could do better? I ask you could he do worse? October 7th was a disaster of epic proportions. There is no other way to say it. The defense establishment utterly failed in their most basic mission, protect the country, protect the civilians. The defense establishment is still utterly failing in the north. There are 100,000 Israelis homeless. The north is unlivable.
Your analysis of Ben Gvirs responsibility for October 7th is just silly. He was not the one who thought Hamas was intimidated. He was not the one who ignored all of the warning signs. He was not the one who got a call late that night and went back to sleep. As for his performance as minister of national security, the attorney general prevented him from doing almost anything. He can’t tell the police what to do that is political interference. He can’t get rid of people or appoint his own people for the same reasons. To blame him for October 7th when there are so many more people who had so much more responsibility shows that you are just using this to attack him because you don’t like his politics. This idea that you have to have served to have an opinion is silly and found nowhere else. FDR never served and yet was the commander in chief during WWII. Abraham Lincoln presided over the bloodiest war in American history never having served. Neither did Clinton or Obama, Biden or Trump.
Last but not least, at least he believes in actually winning wars.
"He calls for war without ever having served in the Israeli military himself, and without the requisite security experience that such calls presuppose." "
This isn't really an argument. His party includes Almog Cohen who fought in Ofakim on Oct 7, Tzvika Fogel who served in several important military posts and holds the rank of brigadier general, 2 paratroopers (Wasserlauf and Amichai Eliyahu) and Yitzchak Kroizer who did milluim in the current war. They very much agree with Ben Gvir.
"while simultaneously shouting simplistic slogans that can bring Israel to ruin."
As opposed.... to 'bushah!' 'demokratiyah' and 'shalom achsav' which are deeply nuanced and sober assessments of the complex nature of things? Seriously, that's what happens at rallies. Also, if your criterion is ability to reason, Ben Gvir is a lawyer who argued his own case before the Bagatz. He's capable of stringing sentences together a whole lot more effectively than Biden was even before he got senile.
"Never mind that the worst day in the history of the State of Israel, where 1200 people were savagely murdered and over 250 taken hostage, took place under the watch of National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir."
Ben Gvir is minister of internal security, not the defense minister. By your own reasoning, Yoav Gallant is much more responsible than Ben Gvir is.
Also, it happens to be that it was mishteret yisrael which mounted the first effective response on Oct 7th when the military was in disarray. (This despite it not even being their responsibility.)
"האחריות על ביטחון פנים במדינת ישראל מוטלת על משטרת ישראל,[3] אולם באזור קו העימות ועוטף עזה מוטלת האחריות על צה"ל[4] ולא על המשטרה.[5] למרות זאת המענה האפקטיבי הראשוני לאירועי 7 "באוקטובר ניתן על ידי משטרה ישראל.[6]
I happen not to think Ben Gvir had anything to do with that either way, but if you're going to grade politicians based on these things, you ought to be consistent.
"It is that last word that chills me to the bone. “Mil-cha-ma,” he said, emphasizing each syllable.
Israel may be forced to stop its tit-for-tat aerial campaign and wage war against Hezbollah. Ben Gvir’s wish may yet become a reality."
You really really really don't like Ben Gvir. That's certainly your right- (unlike me, you live in Israel) but your issue with the guy basically boils down to the fact that he's too rowdy at rallies. Nu, be'emet?
"If, however, Israel is drawn into war without the careful consideration that waging war requires - if Israel goes to war, that is, without the modern equivalent of consulting King David’s military advisor, the Sanhedrin, and the voice of God - our government will have violated the trust that the hundreds of thousands of soldiers, millions of soldiers’ family members, and nine million Israeli civilians have placed in its hands. It will be playing a dangerous game, and we will pay the price."
I'm genuinely curious: what would a duly deliberative war look like? The classy Mister Olmert would especially love to know.
"The long-awaited report said Olmert hastily led the country into conflict against Hezbollah guerrillas without a comprehensive plan, exercised poor judgment and bore ultimate responsibility for a war that Israelis widely fear has emboldened the country’s enemies....
“The prime minister made up his mind hastily, despite the fact that no detailed military plan was submitted to him and without asking for one. Also, his decision was made without close study of the complex features of the Lebanon front and of the military, political and diplomatic options available to Israel.”
It also criticized Defense Minister Amir Peretz for his inexperience and said the wartime military chief, Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz, “acted impulsively,” misrepresented the army’s readiness and suppressed dissenting opinions."
=====
Maybe most importantly, *who* pray tell, is "the modern equivalent of consulting King David’s military advisor, the Sanhedrin, and the voice of God."????
First, reasonable minds would agree that military action should be exercised “with extreme care, extraordinary caution, and intense deliberation.” It seems, however, that in an elected government like Israel’s, representing many diverse constituencies, there is little risk that such decisions would be made by one individual (e.g., Ben Gvir). Consequently, the grave danger of impetuous military action is not apparent to me.
Second, just as concerning as rash military action, is a dilatory and weak one. Hamas took control of Gaza in 2007 and began an on-going terror campaign against Israeli civilians since that time. It stockpiled weapons and built an enormous military infrastructure. Prior to October 7, with Hamas taking hundreds of hostages, Israel had the capability of destroying Hamas, or at least significantly degrading its capabilities. A similar situation was allowed to grow and fester to Israel’s north. Thus, it seems a plausible case could be made that Israel’s current existential predicament is actually attributable to too much “care”, “caution”, and “deliberation” in lieu of strong, decisive action when the stakes were lower and the odds more favorable.
This applies even more so to Hizbullah. After the war in 2006 all of the governments and the defense establishment have let Hezbollah build up a tremendous arsenal that is an existential threat. Maybe it’s time for some new voices with different ideas?
First of all, Gallant is the defense minister. It was HE and all his cronies, all up and down the spectrum of MILITARY leadership who failed in their mission, culminating in the disaster of Oct. 7.
Secondly, there are MULTIPLE verified reports of spotters and observers having been told to STAND DOWN when the first attackers were spotted.
Additioally, it was Benny Gantz who went to confer with the US government without either standing or specific permission as required by Israeli law.
And over the past 8 (+) months it's been the MILITARY that has shown restraint in their actions, none of which IMHO is under the auspices of Ben G'vir.
The Torah - the ULTIMATE G-d given guideline for us Jews - says that when your enemy is coming to attack you, you have the right, moreso the OBLIGATION to kill him/them. NONE of the current leadership has the yirat shamayim to accomplish that goal. Would there were more like Ben G'vir to follow TORAH law, not some ill-conceived leftist/socialist outside mandated and controlled mandate, that is doing all it can to destroy Jews, Israel et al in a major concession to Islam which wants only to take over the world.
Destroying your enemy would be the Orthodox way and there would not be any 'conundrum'.
Scott prefers Benny Gantz who was the army chief and then defense minister throughout the period when Hamas was building its power. The guy who promoted the concept not toppling Hamas and claiming that they were intimidated.
Yes and he bears responsibility as well. The prime minister in Israel is not all powerful like the president of the US. He is not in charge of the army. The minister of defense is. The prime minister can’t make unilateral decisions. On defense issues the defense minister has more power.
In the US it is Congress that needs to declare war, in Israel it’s the PM that declares war. The PM appoints the Defense Minister without Knesset approval, while the President needs a majority vote of approval from Congress.
If anything the PM influences defense in Israel much more so than the President does in the US. Considering how it’s such a prestigious portfolio, the PM can use it as a negotiating tool forming a coalition.
The US Congress hasn’t declared war since WWII, the US has fought in many wars since then. The president has tremendous power. Just last October Biden moved 2 carrier groups to the region and conducted air strikes against the Houthis all by himself.
You can’t compare the secretary of defense to the defense minister. The secretary of defense is there to advise the president. The president is the commander in chief. The situation in Israel is much more complicated. The law states Article 2: Subordination to the Civilian Authorities,” : (a) “The Army is Subject to the Authority of the Government,” and (b) “The Minister in charge of the Army on behalf of the Government is the Minister of Defence.” Your statement about who can declare war is incorrect as well. According to Article 40(a) (as amended in 2001), it is the government that should decide when Israel goes to war, or launches “a significant military operation, which is liable to lead, at a level of probability close to certainty, to war.” The government not the prime minister.
The bottom line is that the prime minister can’t do anything alone, he requires the consent of others as opposed to the president who can act alone.
One additional point. Since every government is a coalition government many times the prime minister is forced to give the defense portfolio to someone from another party like Benny Gantz. That isn’t a sign of strength it’s a sign of weakness.
"If, however, Israel is drawn into war without the careful consideration that waging war requires - if Israel goes to war, that is, without the modern equivalent of consulting King David’s military advisor, the Sanhedrin, and the voice of God - our government will have violated the trust that the hundreds of thousands of soldiers, millions of soldiers’ family members, and nine million Israeli civilians have placed in its hands. It will be playing a dangerous game, and we will pay the price."
And what about all the citizens of the north who have had to abandon their homes and businesses for months? The government is certainly violating its trust with them to protect them and allow them to live their lives. I don’t see ANYONE else providing a solution for hezbollah just more of the same appeasement.
After a war has already begun, is it really necessary to again make these 3 kinds of consultations? I think it is not and unfortunately along with many others this website organizer is beginning to play politics as if it is a governmental thing. Religion and politics don't mix.
Thank you so much for your moral and realpolitik clarity. If only others would exercise independent analysis
Thank you!
Yasher Koach, Scott, for a level-headed analysis of this (and other) situations, reflecting real Kiddush HaShem - rather than attempts, by some, to manipulate Judaism into justifying their own craven base desires!
As Joe Spraragen has already commented, your moral and realpolitik clarity are excellent, and very much needed in Israel today.
I can only echo Joe's wish that others exercise independent analysis as well!
Thank you very much!
Ben-Gvir has not served in the IDF. He doesn’t understand the repercussions of war since he wasn’t in one himself, nor takes time to understand from those who spend their whole lives protecting Israel. Which is terribly unfortunate considering the community he represents has suffered many casualties in this war.
I think a parallel can be made to the campus protesters who have never served in a military capacity who think that an army can wage a war without civilian casualties.
Wars that can be wrapped in neat little bows.
Do you say that about Joe Biden the president of the US? He also didn’t serve in the military. Neither did Obama or Clinton or FDR. Why do you apply this particular test only to Ben Gvir?
Hi Marty - I second what Sim said, and want to point out that I didn't say that the problem is that he didn't serve in the military; the problem is the combination of not having served, having no security experience or specialized knowledge, and simultaneously offering simplistic solutions and reductionist slogans. I do not believe that someone needs to have been in the military to make military decisions; but lacking that, as well as experience and knowledge, should lead a levelheaded individual to humility and nuance and a recognition that things are not simple. Ben Gvir, to his discredit, does the opposite.
Every politician offers simplistic slogans, that is the nature of politics. Is peace now a nuanced slogan? Bring them home now? You simply don’t like his politics so you disparage them. I don’t see a single politician in Israel (or anywhere else) offering nuanced slogans.
The demand to go to war is very different from other slogans (and I agree, Peace Now is a foolish slogan, too). I'm guessing that you, like me, have children in the Israeli army in harm's way. Are you really willing to take chances with their lives - after you acknowledge that Israel has not truly won a war in decades - with someone whose strategy is effectively "Just do it"? Did Israel not succeed in those wars because our leaders are too scared or foolish? Or perhaps they know things that Ben Gvir doesn't, or chooses to ignore? I don't mean that Israel should not go to war, either; I don't have the knowledge to know what the price would be, and how to balance that against the potential gains. But I'm pretty sure that Ben Gvir doesn't either.
Why? Peace now is just as dangerous if not more. It has led to the current situation.
Let’s take a realistic look at what the defense establishment has advocated in the past 20 years.
Disengagement- they were all for it. Shaul Mofaz who was defense minister at the time and a former chief of staff went on record after October 7th that the disengagement was the correct thing to do.
Lebanon war 2006 - looking back at the military’s performance can anyone say it was good? Did the war achieve any goals?
Various operations against Hamas in the last 10 years - Again the defense establishment never wanted to destroy Hamas, they always pushed for limited operations. The end result was October 7th.
How about the defense establishment’s neglect of the ground forces? Their slogan was a small technological army? How did that work out? October 7th blew that conception up.
Even the current war has not exactly been a great success. It’s 8 months and we still haven’t defeated Hamas a small terrorist group. Who is making defense policy. People like Benny Gantz, Eisenkot, Netanyahu, the current chief of staff. They have failed. After 8 months there are still 120 hostages in captivity. After 8 months the north of the country is unlivable with tens of thousands of people still unable to go home.
So I ask you seriously Scott, can you say that the defense establishment in Israel has done a good job in the last 20 years? So maybe it’s time for some new ideas from people like Ben Gvir.
Ronald Reagan won an election with a very simplistic question. Are you better off than you were 4 years ago?
The left has basically controlled defense and foreign policy for the last 30 years even though there have been Likud governments. So let’s ask that question. Are we better off than we were before Oslo, the withdrawal from Lebanon, the withdrawal from Gaza? And the answer is clearly and unequivocally no. Thousands of people have been killed. Rockets on all parts of the country have become commonplace. And of course October 7th and its aftermath.
What do you want to do? Continue with the same defense experts who have gotten us to this point? Continue with the same policies that have gotten us here? After a disaster like October 7th don’t you think something should change?
I didn’t say he didn’t pass a certain test. I said he himself doesn’t understand, like the lefties he despises, that wars aren’t simple. There are many who didn’t serve in the military who can make decisions based on level headed thinking. This includes taking advice from the Chiefs of Staff, not disparaging ever single Chief of Staff.
Given the lack of success of the recent chiefs of staff why shouldn’t he disparage them? Let’s take a real look at their accomplishments or lack of them. When is the last time Israel actually won a war? Not recently. The war in Lebanon in 2006 was certainly not a victory neither were any of the operations against Hamas.
How far back are you going to go with COS or even DM? Is it because some of them are now political opponents now and therefore they were utter failures?
Israel hasn’t conclusively won a war or had an Entebbe like operation since Begin was elected. Is it all his fault?
Disparaging isn’t helping simply for morale, and because even though they made mistakes that lead to here they are still among the nest qualified to be in their position.
Plus, even if you think the current brass should be removed. Do you honestly think Ben-Gvir would be better? His dumb tweet of “Hamas ❤️ Biden” was a boon for Hamas and bad for Israel. I can’t imagine what he would do or say if he was PM and would isolate Israel.
I’m sorry. At some point you have to evaluate your strategy and see if it’s working. Can you say that the defense strategy of the last x years, you pick x, has worked? I certainly can’t. By any measure the defense establishment failed miserably on October 7th and before and hasn’t done much better since. That is the bottom line. It’s 8 months after October 7th and there are still 120 hostages. It’s 8 months after October 7th and the north is burning and 100,000 Israelis are homeless. So yes when your strategy has utterly failed you need to reevaluate and come up with a new one.
You claim they are still best suited, I would disagree. They are set in their ways which HAVENT WORKED. It’s time for new leadership and new ideas in the defense establishment.
Here is one example. Iron dome is a great technical success and a terrible strategic failure. The defense establishment took iron dome and used it to justify their policies against Hamas. Since the Hamas rockets did little damage because iron dome intercepted them they used that to justify not destroying Hamas. That led directly to October 7th.
You ask do I think Ben Gvir could do better? I ask you could he do worse? October 7th was a disaster of epic proportions. There is no other way to say it. The defense establishment utterly failed in their most basic mission, protect the country, protect the civilians. The defense establishment is still utterly failing in the north. There are 100,000 Israelis homeless. The north is unlivable.
Horribly scary
Your analysis of Ben Gvirs responsibility for October 7th is just silly. He was not the one who thought Hamas was intimidated. He was not the one who ignored all of the warning signs. He was not the one who got a call late that night and went back to sleep. As for his performance as minister of national security, the attorney general prevented him from doing almost anything. He can’t tell the police what to do that is political interference. He can’t get rid of people or appoint his own people for the same reasons. To blame him for October 7th when there are so many more people who had so much more responsibility shows that you are just using this to attack him because you don’t like his politics. This idea that you have to have served to have an opinion is silly and found nowhere else. FDR never served and yet was the commander in chief during WWII. Abraham Lincoln presided over the bloodiest war in American history never having served. Neither did Clinton or Obama, Biden or Trump.
Last but not least, at least he believes in actually winning wars.
"He calls for war without ever having served in the Israeli military himself, and without the requisite security experience that such calls presuppose." "
This isn't really an argument. His party includes Almog Cohen who fought in Ofakim on Oct 7, Tzvika Fogel who served in several important military posts and holds the rank of brigadier general, 2 paratroopers (Wasserlauf and Amichai Eliyahu) and Yitzchak Kroizer who did milluim in the current war. They very much agree with Ben Gvir.
"while simultaneously shouting simplistic slogans that can bring Israel to ruin."
As opposed.... to 'bushah!' 'demokratiyah' and 'shalom achsav' which are deeply nuanced and sober assessments of the complex nature of things? Seriously, that's what happens at rallies. Also, if your criterion is ability to reason, Ben Gvir is a lawyer who argued his own case before the Bagatz. He's capable of stringing sentences together a whole lot more effectively than Biden was even before he got senile.
"Never mind that the worst day in the history of the State of Israel, where 1200 people were savagely murdered and over 250 taken hostage, took place under the watch of National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir."
Ben Gvir is minister of internal security, not the defense minister. By your own reasoning, Yoav Gallant is much more responsible than Ben Gvir is.
Also, it happens to be that it was mishteret yisrael which mounted the first effective response on Oct 7th when the military was in disarray. (This despite it not even being their responsibility.)
https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%98%D7%A8%D7%AA_%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%9C_%D7%91%D7%9E%D7%9C%D7%97%D7%9E%D7%AA_%D7%97%D7%A8%D7%91%D7%95%D7%AA_%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%96%D7%9C#%D7%A8%D7%A7%D7%A2
"האחריות על ביטחון פנים במדינת ישראל מוטלת על משטרת ישראל,[3] אולם באזור קו העימות ועוטף עזה מוטלת האחריות על צה"ל[4] ולא על המשטרה.[5] למרות זאת המענה האפקטיבי הראשוני לאירועי 7 "באוקטובר ניתן על ידי משטרה ישראל.[6]
I happen not to think Ben Gvir had anything to do with that either way, but if you're going to grade politicians based on these things, you ought to be consistent.
"It is that last word that chills me to the bone. “Mil-cha-ma,” he said, emphasizing each syllable.
Israel may be forced to stop its tit-for-tat aerial campaign and wage war against Hezbollah. Ben Gvir’s wish may yet become a reality."
You really really really don't like Ben Gvir. That's certainly your right- (unlike me, you live in Israel) but your issue with the guy basically boils down to the fact that he's too rowdy at rallies. Nu, be'emet?
"If, however, Israel is drawn into war without the careful consideration that waging war requires - if Israel goes to war, that is, without the modern equivalent of consulting King David’s military advisor, the Sanhedrin, and the voice of God - our government will have violated the trust that the hundreds of thousands of soldiers, millions of soldiers’ family members, and nine million Israeli civilians have placed in its hands. It will be playing a dangerous game, and we will pay the price."
I'm genuinely curious: what would a duly deliberative war look like? The classy Mister Olmert would especially love to know.
From 2007
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna18389634
"The long-awaited report said Olmert hastily led the country into conflict against Hezbollah guerrillas without a comprehensive plan, exercised poor judgment and bore ultimate responsibility for a war that Israelis widely fear has emboldened the country’s enemies....
“The prime minister made up his mind hastily, despite the fact that no detailed military plan was submitted to him and without asking for one. Also, his decision was made without close study of the complex features of the Lebanon front and of the military, political and diplomatic options available to Israel.”
It also criticized Defense Minister Amir Peretz for his inexperience and said the wartime military chief, Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz, “acted impulsively,” misrepresented the army’s readiness and suppressed dissenting opinions."
=====
Maybe most importantly, *who* pray tell, is "the modern equivalent of consulting King David’s military advisor, the Sanhedrin, and the voice of God."????
I have two questions/comments.
First, reasonable minds would agree that military action should be exercised “with extreme care, extraordinary caution, and intense deliberation.” It seems, however, that in an elected government like Israel’s, representing many diverse constituencies, there is little risk that such decisions would be made by one individual (e.g., Ben Gvir). Consequently, the grave danger of impetuous military action is not apparent to me.
Second, just as concerning as rash military action, is a dilatory and weak one. Hamas took control of Gaza in 2007 and began an on-going terror campaign against Israeli civilians since that time. It stockpiled weapons and built an enormous military infrastructure. Prior to October 7, with Hamas taking hundreds of hostages, Israel had the capability of destroying Hamas, or at least significantly degrading its capabilities. A similar situation was allowed to grow and fester to Israel’s north. Thus, it seems a plausible case could be made that Israel’s current existential predicament is actually attributable to too much “care”, “caution”, and “deliberation” in lieu of strong, decisive action when the stakes were lower and the odds more favorable.
This applies even more so to Hizbullah. After the war in 2006 all of the governments and the defense establishment have let Hezbollah build up a tremendous arsenal that is an existential threat. Maybe it’s time for some new voices with different ideas?
First of all, Gallant is the defense minister. It was HE and all his cronies, all up and down the spectrum of MILITARY leadership who failed in their mission, culminating in the disaster of Oct. 7.
Secondly, there are MULTIPLE verified reports of spotters and observers having been told to STAND DOWN when the first attackers were spotted.
Additioally, it was Benny Gantz who went to confer with the US government without either standing or specific permission as required by Israeli law.
And over the past 8 (+) months it's been the MILITARY that has shown restraint in their actions, none of which IMHO is under the auspices of Ben G'vir.
The Torah - the ULTIMATE G-d given guideline for us Jews - says that when your enemy is coming to attack you, you have the right, moreso the OBLIGATION to kill him/them. NONE of the current leadership has the yirat shamayim to accomplish that goal. Would there were more like Ben G'vir to follow TORAH law, not some ill-conceived leftist/socialist outside mandated and controlled mandate, that is doing all it can to destroy Jews, Israel et al in a major concession to Islam which wants only to take over the world.
Destroying your enemy would be the Orthodox way and there would not be any 'conundrum'.
Scott prefers Benny Gantz who was the army chief and then defense minister throughout the period when Hamas was building its power. The guy who promoted the concept not toppling Hamas and claiming that they were intimidated.
And Netanyahu was the PM during that span telling Gantz what to do
For all the good Netanyahu has done over the years, I did not want him as PM.
Yes and he bears responsibility as well. The prime minister in Israel is not all powerful like the president of the US. He is not in charge of the army. The minister of defense is. The prime minister can’t make unilateral decisions. On defense issues the defense minister has more power.
In the US it is Congress that needs to declare war, in Israel it’s the PM that declares war. The PM appoints the Defense Minister without Knesset approval, while the President needs a majority vote of approval from Congress.
If anything the PM influences defense in Israel much more so than the President does in the US. Considering how it’s such a prestigious portfolio, the PM can use it as a negotiating tool forming a coalition.
The US Congress hasn’t declared war since WWII, the US has fought in many wars since then. The president has tremendous power. Just last October Biden moved 2 carrier groups to the region and conducted air strikes against the Houthis all by himself.
You can’t compare the secretary of defense to the defense minister. The secretary of defense is there to advise the president. The president is the commander in chief. The situation in Israel is much more complicated. The law states Article 2: Subordination to the Civilian Authorities,” : (a) “The Army is Subject to the Authority of the Government,” and (b) “The Minister in charge of the Army on behalf of the Government is the Minister of Defence.” Your statement about who can declare war is incorrect as well. According to Article 40(a) (as amended in 2001), it is the government that should decide when Israel goes to war, or launches “a significant military operation, which is liable to lead, at a level of probability close to certainty, to war.” The government not the prime minister.
The bottom line is that the prime minister can’t do anything alone, he requires the consent of others as opposed to the president who can act alone.
One additional point. Since every government is a coalition government many times the prime minister is forced to give the defense portfolio to someone from another party like Benny Gantz. That isn’t a sign of strength it’s a sign of weakness.
You write
"If, however, Israel is drawn into war without the careful consideration that waging war requires - if Israel goes to war, that is, without the modern equivalent of consulting King David’s military advisor, the Sanhedrin, and the voice of God - our government will have violated the trust that the hundreds of thousands of soldiers, millions of soldiers’ family members, and nine million Israeli civilians have placed in its hands. It will be playing a dangerous game, and we will pay the price."
And what about all the citizens of the north who have had to abandon their homes and businesses for months? The government is certainly violating its trust with them to protect them and allow them to live their lives. I don’t see ANYONE else providing a solution for hezbollah just more of the same appeasement.
After a war has already begun, is it really necessary to again make these 3 kinds of consultations? I think it is not and unfortunately along with many others this website organizer is beginning to play politics as if it is a governmental thing. Religion and politics don't mix.