Israel Debates Who Controls Security Policy: Government or Military Generals

The recent live announcement by Defense Minister Israel Katz replacing Central Command Chief Avi Blot with Aluf Dado Bar-Kalifa has sparked a broader debate about who truly shapes Israel's security policy: the elected government or the senior military leadership. The controversy transcends personal or stylistic conflicts, focusing instead on the balance of power between political decision-makers and generals accustomed to being equal partners in policy formulation.

The article highlights the Israeli military's significant responsibility for the October 7 failures, noting that for years the system conveyed to political leaders the belief that Hamas sought economic prosperity and escalation avoidance. Despite unusual signs and consultations the night before the attack, no timely warnings reached Prime Minister Netanyahu or Defense Minister Katz. The failure peaked when Ronen Bar did not alert the Prime Minister, fearing a strong reaction might provoke Hamas leader Sinwar. On the morning of the attack, command systems collapsed for hours, resulting in approximately 1,200 killed or raped and 251 abducted to Gaza.

This failure is described as cultural, termed "Voxnerization," referencing a shift in military leadership mindset influenced by American woke ideologies, leading to generals acting more as risk managers than decisive commanders. The article notes a trend of senior officers aligning with left-wing parties, shaping military concepts around deterrence and stability rather than decisive victory or changing realities.

The appointment of the Chief of Staff is called the "original sin," with a need for a leader who understands the necessity of conceptual and organizational change. While candidate Eyal Zamir was seen as more aggressive, he often expressed reservations about government decisions, such as cautioning against entering Gaza City. The article stresses that once the government decides, the military must execute decisively, not oppose policy with professional dissent.

Regarding the recent appointment process, the article clarifies that the Chief of Staff proposes senior appointments, which the Defense Minister approves, a dual-key system. Katz’s live announcement was institutionally imprudent if perceived as an immediate dismissal over a policy dispute, but if Bar-Kalifa was recommended by the Chief of Staff, the disagreement concerns timing and promotion policy, not bypassing the chain of command.

A legal dimension is introduced referencing the ongoing Supreme Court case against National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, which examines the boundary between political responsibility and professional independence in security forces. While the military is explicitly subordinate to the government, a petition against Katz could argue improper use of authority for political reasons. The court might freeze the appointment and demand a factual basis, potentially importing police-like restrictions to the military context.

The article concludes by urging Katz to be firm yet precise, clarifying government policy and demanding a command focused on decisive victory while maintaining a documented, orderly process. Civilian control of the military is not arbitrary ministerial rule but professional subordination to democratically set policy. Generals must warn and advise but are not a government in uniform; in a democracy, the government sets war aims, and the military determines how to win them.

Professor Moshe Cohen-Eliya, a constitutional law expert and founder of the Masad Haaretz research institute, authored the analysis.