Rabbi Herzi Halevi was just elected and already has to deal with philosophical, hypothetical questions regarding the governmental structure of the State of Israel. As the journalist Nahum Barnea recently revealed.
Well, I asked the IDF spokesman if the statements were true. This is the answer.
“During a conversation with reserve personnel about the situation, the Chief of Staff was asked what he would do if a dictatorial regime was established in Israel. The Chief of Staff answered, as one would answer a hypothetical question of this type, saying that he believed there would be no dictatorship here.
“The Chief of Staff continued and answered that in any scenario he would stay in the country and try to influence it so that it would be good here, and the defense of the country is a condition for its existence.”
“The Chief of Staff supports and believes in the State of Israel being Jewish and democratic. The IDF trusts in the defense of the state and does not intervene in the dispute [הפוליטית] the existing one.’
The levy is between a rock and a hard place. He just got the role of his life – why would he give it up? Because of the theoretical possibility that some politician will turn himself into a dictator under the auspices of changing the legislation led by Rothman and Levin? how do you say? There is a difference between theory and practice.
In practice he is Chief of Staff. The dictator meanwhile remains in theory. Apparently, 99 percent of the readers of these lines would choose to remain Chief of Staff as Halevi chose at this time.
Halevi, like Dadi Barnea – head of the Mossad, Ronan Bar – head of the Shin Bet and Kobi Shabtai – police commissioner, is at odds between his personal interest and the moral question of whether to remain head of a security organization and support a dictator, should one arise in Israel.
This is a position to which all four aspired, almost all their adult lives and reached it by merit, after decades of public service in their organizations. It is a position with the ability to have professional influence, a high salary, a lot of ego and respect from the environment and a future springboard to the world of business or politics. Why give it up now for a future hypothetical question? It goes against human nature to seek immediate feedback.
Moreover, who said they don’t support legal reform? None of us know what each of the four put on the ballot last November or what their personal opinion is about the legislative changes being led by Rothman and Levin. Are all four opposed? Maybe some or all of them support her?
Unlike “the former” in those functions, who have already exercised the options of the position and therefore it is easy for them to express themselves in relation to the legal reform (there is no personal loss), those in office may be dismissed and lose personally. At stake, as mentioned, is money, ego and professional influence.
In conclusion, Halevy formulated directly a hypothetical question. If an Israeli politician arises and takes advantage of the legal framework that Rothman and Levin want to establish, and turns himself into a dictator, Halevi, if he will be Chief of Staff by then, will have to choose his professional path.