Publication
Head of Research at the Tachlith Institute: The war cabinet responds to numerous recommendations and reports determining that the regular cabinet is irrelevant during wartime.
Dr. Elad Gil, Head of Research at the Tachlith Institute for Israeli Policy, addresses in an interview with Arutz Sheva the significance of establishing the war cabinet alongside the existing Security Cabinet, raising first and foremost the question of whether this is a required and efficient forum, or one whose entire purpose is political to expand the government.
Answering this question, Dr. Gil states that “this is the kind of case where out of the non-pure comes the pure.” According to him, although “there is some political background here. National Unity entered a situation that was not easy for the country and not easy politically, and wanted a mechanism that would guarantee their influence, but in the process something happened that should have happened long ago. In fact, Israel thereby implemented the conclusion of a series of reports stating that a different mechanism must be created for war planning.”
The reports in question recommended establishing a מצומצם (lean) forum that during wartime would enable the government to operate the army in an optimal manner.
Regarding these words, we asked Dr. Gil whether the current war cabinet is indeed the recipe recommended by those reports, given that its establishment was designed to provide a political response to the need for government expansion, rather than being a choice devoid of interests and considerations by a Prime Minister. These matters sharpen when Yair Lapid, who possessed a distinct political interest to replace the government, could equally have joined the narrow cabinet. Can their considerations be trusted as purely professional?
“Reality will show us very quickly how this works, and the burden of proof is on whoever is in the cabinet,” Dr. Gil says, adding that if one wants a forum secure from the entry of political considerations, it is a one-person forum, but such a forum would inherently be limited since every person is driven by various extraneous and personal considerations, so there is no escaping opening the ranks to a slightly larger scope and a balance between the two is required. “We want to bring as much knowledge, professionalism, and experience of as many people as possible, without being a politically cumbersome body vulnerable to leaks. And life is a choice between imperfect alternatives.”
In his estimation, “in such a body it is reasonable to assume there will be much fewer political intrigues than in a body of 15 ministers, many of whom are sectoral and come from smaller parties.” Regarding these remarks, we return and ask whether, if this is indeed the case, managing positions might be better with a variety of opinions, a matter that sharpens when ministers such as Eizenkot and Gantz join the narrow forum, whose own conduct as chiefs of staff will also need to be investigated the day after the war. Shouldn’t the positions of the two be balanced against the positions of other civilian ministers, noting that we have seen successful civilian defense ministers manage campaigns, such as Levi Eshkol and Moshe Arens.
“We must look back and learn from experience. We know how to say that the Security Cabinet is something that does not work, and apparently because it does not work it was not used too much. Winograd said it was not used in the Second Lebanon War. From experience we know how to say what does not work and we created something new in accordance with the position of people whose expertise is managing wars. Regarding the personas appropriate to include in the forum, one can argue, but from the perspective of the vast experience we have accumulated, it is worth examining this option when we know the alternative does not work.”
Yet doubt remains regarding the efficiency of the new forum, since its establishment was constructed according to political need rather than professional-operational consideration alone. To this, Dr. Gil remarks that the large cabinet still exists, and it is the one that will have to approve any decision of the narrow cabinet, and the dynamics between the two will need to be examined, “but at least we can say that something is being done here that was recommended for many years and not done, and this can be an encouraging sign.”
