News from the island
- After Lieberman's resignation .. Gaza rejoices and Netanyahu gets confused
- Lieberman's resignation as "scapegoat" for Netanyahu ahead of elections
- Injured Israelis in the process of stabbing Jerusalem and the martyrdom of a fisherman in Gaza
- Malaysian activists call for the lifting of the siege on Gaza
- Washington Post: After violence .. Netanyahu chooses peace in Gaza
It is well known that the political system in Israel is composed of a mosaic of political parties and camps of various affiliations and tendencies. This is due to the national divisions (Arab Jews), religious (orthodox, traditional, religious, ordinary), sectarianism, As opposed to liberalism). Moreover, the politicization of the Israeli society and its depth did not leave the Israeli army in the face of these currents and paths, which constituted a kind of ideological medium for the crystallization of a military elite with a qualitative cultural character. It is that the symbols of the force of the hard-line review, which eventually entice their owners to pursue long-running political and ideological ambitions, are common.
The severe crisis experienced by the political system in Israel after the escalation of political differences after the resignation of Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman, because of the policy of the Israeli government to deal with the Gaza file, and acceptance of a cease-fire in light of the victory of the Palestinian resistance against the Israeli army, In front of the questions how the establishment of the Security Council mini-(cable) and how it evolved, and why turned to a crisis after what was a political kitchen that manages the political and security process in Israel?
How does the decision be made inside Israel?
There are usually two main stages in the decision-making process within Israel, the first stage in which basic lines are drawn up, crystallized and decision-making is made. In the second phase, these decisions are formally approved. Usually, in the first stage, informal bodies (political kitchens) set the policy and decisions to be taken and drawn up, and the second phase begins when these decisions are placed on the government's agenda for approval. It rarely happens that the body that sets policy and makes decisions about national security is the body that approves it. There is a strong tendency in the presidential system for the prime minister of the parliamentary system and the head of state to involve very few people in the design, development and manufacture of national security decisions.
| " |
Lewis Bronstein is one of the first to point out the important role of activities and meetings outside the formal establishment in Israel's decision-making process, dubbed "Kitchen Cabnet"
Ben-Gurion, the founder of the Israeli state and its army, emphasized that the army does not decide politics, order or laws, nor does it decide on war and peace. The army, according to Ben-Gurion, is the executive arm of the government on security and defense. , Declaring war and making peace, and even organizing the army itself. In the face of the state-fortress model, some Israeli researchers and professors tried to present the "armed people" model to diagnose the relations between the army and the community in the event that citizens participate in the military effort at the highest possible point. This model is the closest to the opinion of these researchers to the Israeli state, A war of war and a constant readiness for war, as expressed in the Military Service Act of August 1949, which focused on the aim of preparing the entire people to fight when necessary.
What distinguishes decision-making in national security from decision-making in other areas is secrecy. It can be said that the more important the subject on which the decision is made, the fewer participants participate in its manufacture. The prime minister usually creates a small group of people, most of whom are not members of the government, to take part in policy making and drafting, and "cook" the decisions in the prime minister's "kitchen" and put them on the government table to "eat" them. In many cases, researchers address official institutional decision-making, do not dive into meetings or activities that take place before the government passes those decisions, and do not seek the "black box" in the decision-making process and its activities. Practically the end point in the decision-making process rather than its beginning.
The Cabnet .. How did it start and how it evolved?
Lewis Bronstein is one of the first to point out the important role of activities and meetings outside the official establishment in Israel's decision-making process, dubbed "Kitchen Cabnet". Bronstein pointed out that the "kitchen cabnets" goes back to the stage of the first prime minister in Israel, David Ben-Gurion, who drew the outlines of his policy in national security. The stages of development of the Israeli cable can be determined in the following points:
The stages of development of the Israeli cable:
Ben Gurion Kitchen
David Ben-Gurion believed that the government was not the place to set policy and draw it in terms of national security, so the government used an institution to approve its policy on national security, which he painted in his kitchen. Ben-Gurion's kitchen was not constant during his tenure as prime minister, but it is possible to point to the large number of military leaders who were participating in his kitchen. Among them were Moshe Dayan, chief of staff, other chiefs of staff, heads of military intelligence (Aman) General of the Ministry of Defense, and Yitzhak Navon, the political secretary of the Shin Bet security service.
Ben-Gurion listened to the opinions of the army generals and crystallized his policy in his kitchen and made important decisions concerning national security, and then presented them to the government for approval. A well-known example of this method of action was his preparation of the aggression against Egypt in 1956. Ben-Gurion took the decision to fight in his kitchen. This decision remained secret until the Israeli government was summoned to agree to wage war before the general mobilization of the Israeli army began Few.
Golda Meir Kitchen
Golda Meir's kitchen is the most famous of the "kitchens" of Israel's prime ministers. It discussed important issues related to national security and policy formulation and crystallization of these issues before presenting them to the Committee of Ministers for Security Affairs and the Government. The military secretary of Golda Meir arranged for the coordination of these meetings, which were held at Golda Meir's house (usually weekly and on Saturday evening). However, senior military officers participating in these meetings used the maps to present and explain the proposed military operations. The meetings were held in Golda Meir's kitchen in an informal and confidential manner, without fear of leaks. This led to the presentation and discussion of the issues in full openness and freedom of the participants even if there were serious differences of views among the military.
The military has enjoyed considerable influence in shaping national security policy in Golda Meir's kitchen. The number of military personnel was usually closer to half the number of participants in the meeting and, as security experts, more than others in the meetings. In addition, the important ministers involved in the kitchen (Dayan, Allon and Glory) were former generals in the military, and their culture was militarily militaristic and militarily based on their thinking. Perhaps more importantly, the military establishment.
Yitzhak Rabin Kitchen
Yitzhak Rabin's "kitchen" meetings were attended by a steady group of people and others who were not stable. The permanent group, together with Yitzhak Rabin, included Foreign Minister Yigal Allon, Defense Minister Shimon Peres, the Chief of Staff and a number of army generals, including Military Intelligence Chief Aman and the Military Secretary of the Prime Minister and Director General of the Prime Minister's Office. The "kitchen" meetings were held weekly in the prime minister's office, where national security issues were discussed and policy was drawn up and crystallized on the issues raised and a consensus formed. The prime minister then presented what he had agreed upon to the Committee of Ministers for Security and Government. In some cases, some important and sensitive issues were discussed, a specific policy was drawn up and decisions were taken in the "kitchen" only, which was never presented to the Committee of Ministers for Security Affairs or the Government.
After the Rabin phase, the security kitchen was transformed into a part of the Israeli government. Its members were agreed within the government coalition, meaning that the members of the cabinet were ministers from the government and not as they were in the past. This is about the cable for an internal conflict arena between the ministers and the prime minister, which has happened in recent days, after the outbreak of differences between the members of the Security Council on how to deal with Gaza, what Lieberman called for Defense Minister to resign on the backdrop of acceptance of the truce with Hamas in Gaza after targeting The bus is on the Gaza border.