by Maj. Gen. (res.) Gershon Hacohen
Proponents of concessions and withdrawals are traditionally cast as guided entirely by professional considerations, while opponents of such ideas are dismissed as driven by ulterior motives and political agendas. This presentation is not only false but the inverse of the truth.
Shabtai Shavit, photo via Wikipedia
BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 1,095, February 24, 2019
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In the
public debate on Israel’s national security in general and a desirable
Israeli-Palestinian settlement in particular, the dividing line between
“political” and “professional” has been drawn by old elites and interest
groups. Proponents of concessions and withdrawals are traditionally
cast as guided entirely by professional considerations, while opponents
of such ideas are dismissed as driven by ulterior motives and political
agendas. This presentation is not only false but the inverse of the
truth.
Former Mossad Director Shabtai Shavit dismisses my opinion piece “Benny Gantz’s Dangerous Ambiguity on West Bank Disengagement”
as a political treatise undeserving of publication by an academic
research institute. He derides the BESA Center for Strategic Studies,
which published the paper and where I serve as a senior research
associate, as “painted since its foundation by political colors in line
with the number of its skullcap-wearing associates.” Had Shavit done his
due diligence, he would have quickly learned that even by the
parameters of his perverse logic, the BESA Center should be painted by
quite different “political colors” given that over 80% of its research
associates are not “skullcap-wearers.”
This mindboggling stigmatization notwithstanding,
it is not the first time I have been accused of subordinating
professional considerations to a political agenda. In a 2005 war game at
the IDF’s General Staff, contemplating possible military responses to
rocket/missile attacks from the Gaza Strip after the looming unilateral
disengagement, I argued that the IDF’s operational maneuverability would
be severely constrained and that decisions on operating in Palestinian
territory across the border fence would be complex and difficult to
make. I further maintained that the IDF would find it exceedingly
difficult to respond effectively to Hamas missile attacks launched from
densely populated areas. I was immediately accused of speaking
“politically” rather than “professionally.” The same occurred three
years later, when I told my fellow General Staff officers of my doubts
about the IDF’s ability to defend Israel in the event of total
withdrawal from the Golan Heights. The formula is clear: officers who
downplay the security risks of territorial withdrawals do so on
“professional” grounds; those who underscore the dangers attending such
withdrawals are driven by “political” considerations.
There lies the crux of the matter. In the debate
on Israel’s national security in general and a desirable
Israeli-Palestinian settlement in particular, the dividing line between
the “political” and the “professional” has been drawn by old elites and
interest groups that exert overwhelming influence on the public
discourse. Thus, proponents of concessions and withdrawals have long
been cast as guided exclusively by professional considerations, while
their opponents have been dismissed as driven by ulterior motives and
political agendas. It is no coincidence that the piece that attracted
Shavit’s mudslinging – free of rebuttal of a single fact or assertion –
has been translated and thoroughly discussed by the influential
Palestinian newspaper, al-Quds al-Arabi.
In reality, it is difficult to find national
decisions – in the social, economic, political, educational, and
security fields, among others – that are completely value-free and made
on professional grounds alone. A medical prognosis is a strictly
professional matter; public health policy decisions reflect a
socioeconomic worldview and value system.
This in turn means that when former security
officials justify far-reaching territorial concessions “because the
preservation of certain values overrides the importance of land,” they
do so from a clear political vantage point. As such, they have no
intrinsic advantage over fellow citizens who hold a different view
despite the manipulative substitution of a “professional” prognosis for a
politically motivated view.
In these circumstances, Israelis must demand an
open and critical public debate that takes the “assessments” and
“recommendations” offered by former security officials for what they
are: preconceived political views masquerading as impartial professional
prognoses.
An earlier Hebrew version of this article was published in Israel Hayom on February 21, 2019.
Source: https://besacenter.org/perspectives-papers/stifling-the-national-security-debate-a-response-to-shabtai-shavit/
Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter
No comments:
Post a Comment