The disagreement between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon over whether or not military officials should comment on burning issues in public speaks to the core of the democratic system in Israel. Some, seeking to ram Netanyahu, say that Ya'alon did the right thing by backing public statements made by officers, but the roles of the military and political echelons have to be clearly defined. We have always known we must maintain the separation between the defense establishment and the executive branch, and the importance of maintaining this separation cannot be understated. The military has a duty to operate within the clear lines drawn for it by the political echelon, and it must follow government instructions to the letter. An IDF officer who believes a minister or the government is in the wrong cannot lambaste them, directly or indirectly, while in uniform. If he absolutely cannot hold his tongue, he must resign his commission and express himself within a private or political capacity. Civil servants are held to a similar standard, anchored by law, which bars them from publicly criticizing the government they work for. It is one of the fundamentals of a proper administration. The Israeli system of democracy is such that the government is elected by the public, and civil service employees, who include members of the armed forces, have a duty to carry out government decisions. Nevertheless, we cannot be naive: A public statement criticizing social processes is bound to cross points, directly or indirectly, with the political debate, and will therefore include criticism of the government. Using IDF Deputy Chief of Staff Maj. Gen. Yair Golan's remarks that he identifies "revolting trends that occurred in Europe as a whole, and in Germany in particular, some 70, 80 and 90 years ago, and finding evidence of those trends here, among us, in 2016," as an example, it is hard to ignore the wider context. The harsh debate this statement evoked over the state of Israeli society aside, the message between the lines levels harsh criticism at certain sectors and political parties. We must draw a clear line defining the responsibilities of those serving in uniform. Golan's remarks were not a slip of the tongue, but rather a carefully calculated move, as were the place and time in which they were made. Moreover, the emotional response and political firestorm sparked by Golan's remarks could have been predicted by anyone in his right mind. Once we allow IDF officials to speak their mind on any subject publicly, the line between what officers can and cannot say in terms of criticizing the government will have been irrevocably crossed. IDF officers will be expressing their political opinions and gaining public support accordingly, and before too long, officers will become recognized by their political affiliation. Much can be done to improve and streamline the IDF. Military officials would be wise to focus on internal IDF issues, such as ethics and capabilities, and refrain from weighing in on political and social issues. Uriel Lynn is a former chairman of the Knesset Constitution, Law and Justice Committee.
