The defamation lawsuit filed against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by former Shin Bet chief Ronen Bar raises a poignant question: What does this precedent say about the prime minister's leadership style?
Leadership Failure: Why the "They Didn't Wake Me Up" Argument Contradicts the Character of a Democratic Regime?
In a normal parliamentary democracy, the existence of the security establishment is based on one fundamental constitutional principle: The authority of the political echelon. The army, the Shin Bet, the Mossad, and the police are not independent entities operating in a vacuum. They do not set policy, do not define national priorities, and do not act on their own. They are the executive arms of the elected government, headed by the prime minister. From this absolute subordination a simple truth is derived: The authority and responsibility lie with the Prime Minister, since he is the one who appointed the ministers of his government, determined the policy, and is the one who makes the decisions. If Netanyahu is unable to lead and control the "officials" and the "Deep State," who he claims misled him and did not act according to the policy he set, then he is unfit to lead.
The repeated insinuation from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's statements that he is ostensibly exempt from responsibility for the October 7th failure, because security officials "They didn't warn him or wake him up at night.", is not just a logical fallacy, it is a childish argument that undermines the very concept of democratic leadership.
The fallacy of reducing responsibility to a phone call
To hold a leader accountable for whether he received a phone call at 04:00 a.m. is to reduce the concept of leadership to the role of a decision-maker only at the moment of truth. The role of a prime minister does not begin and end with a response to a specific event, but rather in shaping the reality that led to the results.
The security forces do not operate in a vacuum; they operate within the framework, policy, and organizational culture that the political echelon has shaped over the years. If the security forces have failed completely – in intelligence, in preparation, and in operational response – then this failure is not proof of the innocence of the one at the top, but proof of his failure in management, in outlining policy, and in building the force that he himself was entrusted with.
It was the policy that created the default.
The security forces did not fail by chance. They collapsed under the weight of a strategic concept led by the prime minister for over a decade. The policy of containing and strengthening Hamas, the transfer of Qatari funds, and the weakening of the Palestinian Authority – all of these were conscious policy decisions by the political echelon. The military and intelligence built their defense concept and their situation assessments in accordance with the boundaries of these decrees and directives.
When a leader pursues a certain policy for years, appoints the entire top brass of the defense establishment, and ignores broad warnings placed on his desk in the months leading up to the disaster, he cannot suddenly claim that he is a "victim" of poor reporting by his subordinates.
Leadership as a moral and constitutional obligation
In a democratic state, the commander-in-chief is the political leader who bears overall responsibility for everything that happens under his watch. Just as a prime minister takes credit for operational and intelligence successes of the security forces – even when he was not involved in the details of their planning – so too does he have the unquestionable obligation to take full responsibility for their failures.
Excuses such as "they didn't tell me" or "they didn't wake me up" are a renunciation of the essence of the leader's role.
Moreover, the refusal to establish any kind of investigative committee, to appear before the public and answer questions, and even the avoidance of attending funerals, all of these indicate cowardice. Cowardice is not a trait of a leader.
Leadership is not measured only by successes; it is measured first and foremost by the ability to deal with failures, to stand up to the public, to recognize the magnitude of the failure of the system you are leading, and to know that even if the executive branch stumbles - the address is: the Prime Minister.
Citizens' responsibility
In the run-up to the upcoming elections, the discussion of the issue of responsibility is not just a matter for historians or investigative committees – it lies at the heart of the dilemma of the citizens of the State of Israel.
If we rely on the basic principles of the democratic regime, then the ultimate responsibility for the security of the state and the peace of its citizens cannot be outsourced. A leader seeking public trust again cannot hold a stick at both ends: on the one hand, claim credit for the successes of the security establishment, and on the other, shrug off the consequences of its failures by claiming that "he was not warned."
The governmental culture in Israel under test:
The upcoming elections are testing not only political figures, but the governing culture in Israel: Does the public accept a norm in which the leader clears himself of all blame and places it on his subordinates, or does it demand a leadership culture of full governmental and moral responsibility?
Voting at the ballot box will, ultimately, be a value statement about the nature of the "I didn't know" argument – and whether it has a place in the leadership of the country.
In short, all the "wise men" who have responded here so far will be blamed after the elections for not waking them up either...
Keep sleeping and justify the "poor thing."
Apparently Mr. Berger wants a Muslim Brotherhood government.
Mr. Berger, Ronen Bar, Herzi Halevi and Aron Haliva are appointments of Bennett and Lapid who passed as a dowry to the Netanyahu government, but for the sake of the game, let's say they were Netanyahu's appointments. The responsibility was still not his for the simple reason that on October 7th there was betrayal from within the house just to overthrow a prime minister who did not sit well with the leftist elite when he wanted to make changes to the judicial system.
Yossi Berger It seems that most have already understood:
It's either the right or Palestine.
A long and exhausting article that tells Mr. Berger's personal position.
1. The fact is that they didn't wake up!
2. On purpose!
3. So that it doesn't spoil their perception that everything is good.
4. Because of Ronen Bar, Haliva, and Herzi, 1200 were murdered, 250 were captured, and another thousand fell in battle.
5. They have blood on their hands
6. Why do you think they didn't want a balanced state commission of inquiry, half opposition and half coalition?
6. Because they knew she would reveal the truth.
7. An investigative committee appointed by a member will be a fact-finding committee.
8. Why was the spy from the south who allegedly provided information to opposition voters silenced?
9. Why does the criminal MP still receive a major's salary?
# Because the one who is actually ruling today is not the right-wing government, brother of the Holy Trinity:
1. The legal system, which includes the prosecution, the advisors, and the court.
2. The leftist media that is mobilized and still masquerades as non-political.
3. The academy that poisons the poor minds of the younger generations, shaping them in their image – a fascist, Jew-hating, self-hating extreme left.
"I didn't know" refers to Mandelblit, who this week it became clear that he didn't know what he had done with his digital signature: falsely accusing, in trials that have been going on for years, a serving prime minister during a war.
Stop being stupid. You're a fool.
Those who failed were the security forces who were supposed to protect civilians.
They announced in advance, especially the Air Force pilots, that they would refuse.
See the letter of the refuseniks.
It usually takes them a few seconds to arrive in fighter jets over systems even further away than these.
Where were they?