I am reminded of many elections ago in the city where I grew up. It is a small, yet most powerful city, and the then-mayor was running for re-election to the City Council (mayorship is done by rotation between the five councilmembers).
I was on the Mayor’s Steering Committee, thus very close to the events. The person who headed the committee is a person of the highest level of integrity. It was thus known that any action approved by her would withstand the strictest scrutiny and adhere to the most honorable practices.
There were many charges raised during and after the campaign, since it was precedence setting in areas of community participation and inclusion of a third of the community who never voted before. But it was also a very contentious campaign due to another reason altogether.
The community was divided between two main candidates. Members of the City Council do not get paid other than a symbolic honorarium, and typically the candidates are independently wealthy. Moreover, serving on the Council is a full time job that does not benefit the elected official financially. It is not completely altruistic, for there is a different type of “power,” governing within the community of immense powers, wealth and egos, and the feeling of leadership.
What was very surprising was the inclusion of a political consultant, one that usually would be employed for state- or nation-wide elections (like gubernatorial, senatorial or presidential elections). Why is one needed for a city of 34,000? many wondered.
The election did not fare well for the then-Mayor. But the story is not about the fate of the election but two things that happened. An advertisement was published in the local papers the weekend leading to Election Day Tuesday. Many names were included as named-supporters who said they never gave permission to have their names included and do not support the candidate. This caused a firestorm, and the candidate did not have a chance to respond since this was the last issue before the election.
Then in the morning of the election, a circular was placed at the entrance to each home in the city (mostly mansions) attacking the mayor. This last minute maneuvering was said to have tipped the elections against the Mayor.
Many wondered if the inclusion of political consultants in small-town elections was called for or even appropriate. It attracted dirty politics, so prevalent in larger elections, yet so abhorred (in principle) in a small community. It turns out that while we talk against such practices, they can infect every good parcel, our community included.
“Dirty Politics” in the current process of choosing the next Israeli Chief of Staff of the Israel Defense Forces is the focus of recent news. On Friday, a reporter aired a working paper allegedly by one of the leading public relations firms in Israel, about how to get one of the current major generals chosen as the next Chief of Staff.
It is important to note that the current Chief of Staff and the Defense Minister do not get along. Thus, although there is still more than half a year before the Chief of Staff’s term ends, his position will not be renewed and the process of interviewing candidates has already begun. Many view it as a slap in his face and will make the Chief of Staff a lame duck for the remainder of his term.
The calculation of releasing a bombshell on Friday when public officials are prevented from responding until Saturday night was clear. Since during Shabbat all public discourse is prohibited unless the issues are life threatening, just as in elections here too, timing was everything.
What did the document, supposedly sent anonymously to the office of the Defense Minister, say? It gave a long list of actions: to smear the names of others, enhance and enforce the name of the choice candidate, etc. It raised different scenarios and provided various courses of action to achieve a desired result.
The public relations expert on whose letterhead the document was printed filed a police complaint Sunday (upon resumption of work in Israel) alleging the document was a forgery and his office was in no way involved. The Prime Minister instructed the government legal advisor to initiate a police investigation. As a result every former Major General, Chief of Staff or his deputy, Defense Minister and a plethora of advisors spent the day interviewed on the subject.
People were astonished to see themselves in the mirror. The usage of public relations experts is so common nowadays that even major generals engage their services. Yet, a Defense Minister should choose a Chief of Staff based on objective criteria, abilities and determination to lead Israel into victory and prepare the defense establishment, not on artificial hype.
Why is the country so surprised? Major generals are human, and every nomination and decision of Israel’s 19 Chiefs of Staff to-date involved tactics that were not always clean. The public knew about some, other times the censor prohibited any leakage of details.
It is astonishing a document, whose authenticity is in doubt, would gain so much attention.
I also find the sensational nature of the release of this document by an investigative journalist lacking integrity. What was the rush if not to influence the decision making process?
News is created for all the wrong reasons.
The use of public relations experts and strategic consultants has been perfected to such a degree, in Israel as in the United States, that we often find ourselves awed by the evil of election processes.
The fate of Israel is entrusted into the hands of an individual who heads a massive security apparatus, the Israel Defense Forces.
During his tenure, the current Chief of Staff Ashkenazi has proven his ability to bring the military back to the functioning military it was designed to be. He has led by example and needs to remind his generals the public arena is not the playground of the heads of the military. The Chief of Staff has both the power and means to ensure his generals do not engage and partake in dirty politics, an arena already over-crowded by politicians.
It would behoove the Defense Minister and the Prime Minister when making their final decision to take into account the opinion and recommendation of the current Chief of Staff, the direct boss of the candidates to replace him. But due to personal, almost childish bickering, the current Chief of Staff is excluded from the decision-making process.
It is never boring in Israel. If a day passes without news, then it is manufactured. We would be far better served if all those high-paid experts focused on enhancing Israel’s international image, a front in which Israel is sorely losing, while the generals keep focused on the task of defending the Jewish State of Israel on the traditional fronts in the land, sea, air and space.
