Attorney General Mazuz
Photo: Gil Yohanan
Army Chief Mazuz
Attorney general, High Court judges have become our top military commanders
Ehud Olmert’s favorite location has always been an amazing place called “abroad.” It’s a beautiful and cultured place, the food is delicious, the drinks are excellent, people behave politely, and he doesn’t need to decide anything there. Just the way he likes it.
However, there is no choice - here we need to make decisions. Terror attacks like the despicable one in the Mercaz Harav yeshiva in Jerusalem will not end by themselves and the rockets fired from Gaza will not stop because of the kindness of Gazans. It will end only if we can make the right decisions and implement them.
Yet it appears that the defense minister insists on proving that not every military man is fit for the job, and in any case, there has been no dramatic change in the situation since he assumed the post. The foreign minister and other ministers who wish to lead the county one of these days are not really doing everything in their power in order to change this mad reality whereby our cities are fired upon constantly.
They may understand that an active and bolder policy is needed, yet they will not be risking their posts for it. They make do with statements in government meetings and to the media, but they are not going all the way to change the situation.
In the reality that has overtaken our lives, the army’s commander in chief is the attorney general. The security cabinet that makes the decisions is made up of High Court of Justice judges and Ministry of Justice officials. This is a mad reality that makes it difficult for us to fight terrorism.
Elected officials should be making decisions
What do legal advisors have to do with the need to fire back at launching sites used to fire rockets aimed at harming our citizens? Since when are judges supposed to decide which weapons the army should be using in its efforts to protect the resident of Sderot and Ashkelon? Where do Justice Ministry officials draw the authority to decide on the question of whether to attack terrorists who deliberately fire from within a residential neighborhood?And why does the court have to intervene in the security considerations of a government that wishes to, maybe, curb the electricity supply to a hostile entity that is disconnected from us, that has declared war on us, and that tries to harm our citizens every day?
Why isn’t it clear that elected officials, that is, the government, should be making decisions on issues of foreign affairs, security, and defense moves? In old democracies such as the United States and Britain, do legal advisors and courts make decisions on whether to attack in Iraq, Afghanistan, or the Falklands? How did judges and attorney generals, as talented as they may be, turn into military commanders in practice around here? What has prepared them for that? Nothing.
They will also not have to pay the price in case of policy failure. Therefore, the government should govern – it should be the one that sets policy, implements it, and faces the electorate later.
