In the short period during which he has served as defense minister, Israel Katz has demonstrated that even Israel’s national security is not immune to politicization.
When the IDF Spokesperson, in response to a journalist’s question, recently explained the IDF’s professional position that the country’s security might be harmed if the “Feldstein Bill” (which would grant legal immunity to a soldier leaking intelligence to the prime minister or defense minister) is passed, Katz demanded that a disciplinary process be launched against him.
When Jewish citizens were placed in administrative detention, as approved by the courts due to imperative security considerations, Katz instructed that they be released, without even receiving a professional opinion from the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) about the implications of such a decision.
Perhaps these steps should come as no surprise given that Katz’s very appointment as defense minister, after the dismissal of his predecessor at the height of a war, was entirely political. But his recent demand that the IDF chief of staff reprimand the chief of the IDF Intelligence Directorate for presenting, as part of a classified intelligence assessment, the possible security implications of the “Trump plan” for Gaza during the upcoming month of Ramadan, marks a particularly dangerous development.
One of the main functions of the chief of the IDF Intelligence Directorate is to supply the senior military and political leadership with intelligence assessments, to support their decision-making processes, and to warn of threats to the country’s security and of possible wars. The IDF intelligence chief is given the moniker of “the national assessor,” due to his primary responsibility for proving the overall national intelligence assessment, alongside other agencies such as the Mossad and the Shin Bet.
In performing this role, we expect the chief of the Intelligence Directorate to apply professional intelligence standards, both in terms of when to provide intelligence assessments and warnings and in terms of their content.
Given the security realities of the Middle East, it is only natural that intelligence assessments and warnings are often connected to political and foreign policy developments – for example, the decision by the political leadership to place metal detectors at the entry to the Temple Mount, which may have severe security implications.
As reported, the chief of the Intelligence Directorate warned (in a classified meeting) of a possible upsurge in violence in the near future, as a result of public discussion of the “Trump plan” for the transfer of Gaza residents. It was further reported that he did not express an opinion about the wisdom of this plan per se, but simply noted the possible security implications.
Was the top intelligence officer expected to remain silent?
An intelligence assessment of this kind can enable the military and political leadership to plan their actions accordingly – for example, by making necessary adjustments to the readiness and deployment of security forces. As such, the chief of the Intelligence Directorate performed his duties and fulfilled his responsibilities.
Does the defense minister seriously expect the top intelligence officer to remain silent when dark clouds of security threats begin to gather on the horizon? Beyond the danger to Israel’s citizens posed by a lack of intelligence warnings, which would be the result of the defense minister’s demand, it might also create a “chilling effect” on intelligence officers and agencies. That is, they may fear expressing their professional opinions, or may bend them in the direction of the prevailing political wind, to avoid coming to personal harm.
In his opposition to the chief of the Intelligence Directorate expressing his professional opinion, Katz appears to be attempting to restrict the range of professional opinions voiced, so that the country’s political leadership is not exposed to them and does not have to consider them in their decision-making.
This is a fundamentally flawed approach, which will not only result in the delegitimization and silencing of the professional echelon, thus threatening their professional integrity, but also carries the very real threat of damaging the quality of decisions taken by the defense minister and the government. From there, the distance to directly harming the security of the State of Israel and its citizens is very short.
Presumably, if Katz had been serving as defense minister during the months of the judicial overhaul that preceded the events of October 7, he would have been displeased with the intelligence assessments the Intelligence Directorate submitted repeatedly to the prime minister and the then-defense minister, warning of the erosion of Israel’s deterrence in the eyes of our enemies due to the events of that period.
Paradoxically, would Katz not have laid responsibility at the door of the head of the Intelligence Directorate if he had not provided such warnings? The question of the responsibility of the Intelligence Directorate, and its relationship with the political leadership, should certainly be a major focus of a state commission of inquiry into October 7, if one will ever be established. Indeed, this is another important reason why the appointment of such a commission of inquiry is so vital. Unfortunately, Katz has so far opposed the establishment of such a commission.
The chief of the IDF Intelligence Directorate is required to act in accordance with professional intelligence standards when performing his duties, as are the heads of the other intelligence agencies in Israel and those who serve under them. This is a foundational requirement of their profession, and it is also their ethical duty.
The public needs to know that professionals in the public service, including in intelligence agencies, can present their professional opinions free of fear or undue influence, as a prerequisite for decision-making by the political leadership and as an integral part of their decision. Politicization of the intelligence assessment process will be disastrous for the security of the country and its citizens. This should serve as a warning to us all.
Dr. Eran Shamir-Borer is the director of the Center for Security and Democracy at the Israel Democracy Institute. Adv. Edna Harel Fisher is the head of the Public Corruption Program at the Israel Democracy Institute.