Military Dominance of Foreign Policy in Israel

Via Talking Points Memo, I read this interesting commentary in the Israeli paper Hareetz. After reviewing numerous historical instances when generals overconfidently led their countries into disasterous wars, the paper notes that this is why most democracies have built in civilian checks on the ability of the military to make policy decisions. Not so in Israel:

And this is precisely the difference between us and the others: While in all other democracies, a certain dependency of policy-makers on generals is apparent, together with attempts to reduce it, in Israel, the case is not only one of dependency but the fact that our policy-makers are held captive by the generals.

The security policy-making process is in fact the domain of the Israel Defense Forces and the defense establishment. In the absence of non-IDF national security planning bodies, the major part of the planning - not only operational and tactical planning but also strategic and political planning - is done within the army.

The result is that military considerations have often become more dominant than political ones. Thus, Israel's foreign policies have come to be based on an essentially belligerent perception that favors military considerations over diplomatic ones. Violence is seen not only as a legitimate instrument in international affairs, but almost as the only means that can bring positive results.

Looking on at Israel from the outside, it certainly feels that this is the case. It is interesting to see this perspective voiced from the inside.

As an aside it is worth noting that in the United States in recent years I think you can make the case that non-military idealogues are making foreign policy decisions that rely heavily on the blunt instrument of military force over diplomacy, and they are doing it without listening to the generals.