Halutz must go

I'll happily leave the analysis of Dan Halutz's performance during the war to others. I'm a civilian, and I've got no right to analyze his actions and failures, if indeed there were any.

There is no need to understand anything about conducting a war to know that Dan Halutz should quit immediately, now that we know he knew how to take care of himself so well on the first day of the war. No, there was nothing illegal here. Legal experts have already determined that it doesn't appear Halutz broke any laws.

But there is a public mark of shame here. It's not even a question of ethics. It's one of images.

What is a kosher-but-smelly act? One that is technically legal, but reeks of improper behavior. The offender cannot be punished within the provisions of existing law, but his actions should be condemned by the public. This condemnation comes from the public's perception of proper behavior, that suitable individuals don't do such things.

This condemnation is much more serious, and ten-fold more justified, when speaking about a war that failed to yield any concrete gains and the chief of staff is fighting to save his image.

Despite the humiliation, despite the understanding that we have seen no suitable military response to the threat from the north, despite the unnecessary deaths, despite the clear failures – the chief of staff is asking the public for faith in him and the IDF, in their moral superiority, in a comforting story in which the facts are pushed aside because of social coherence, using a thesis agreed upon by everyone, or just about everyone.

But anyone looking for public support at this juncture in time, someone asking us to listen to an old story that once upon a time there were fewer holes, cannot let himself go beyond the self-image in the story.

If the chief of staff were a fictional hero, the author could not have created a greater ethical stain than Dan Halutz's order to sell his stocks at a time when his other orders were sending people to their deaths. These people went to war armed to a great degree with faith in the organization Halutz heads.

In the unwritten Israeli novel, the chief of staff administers the country's battles with a great sense of worry, single-minded and unending, for the wellbeing of his soldiers.

Should they fail in battle, we assume he will be replaced, and we assume he will be declared a tragic hero, asked to pay with his body and career the price of the failures of others.

In the story we grew up with, there is no room for the chief of staff calling his banker while his soldiers are dying. There is no room for him to attend personal affairs – legitimate as they may be – at this time.

There is no room for acts that could be interpreted as dreadfully cynical, to say nothing of the soldiers themselves – especially those who die before getting a chance to call their brokers.

Because of this, Dan Halutz can choose one of two rather unpleasant choices: He can resign in dishonor and ask forgiveness, or he can do nothing, and see just how cracked the story is that will allow for the next massive for the next war, that will also send soldiers convinced of their justice and the justness and superior honesty of their supreme commander.

To a large degree, Halutz's past public statements prove he lacks public sensitivity. It is doubtful he will leave the chief of staff's chair voluntarily. It is even more questionable whether he will be removed from that position by a commission of inquiry about a war we all want to forget as quickly as possible.

But also in order to forget the war and continue to remember only the image, the way he wants, he must go. A person who spits on the image, in such an ugly manner, does not deserve the faith that will ensure his orders – other than the ones to his broker – will be carried out.