Israel’s Gaza war and ‘post-truth’ politics
On the eve of the release of the report on the failures of the political leadership during Operation Protective Edge, the country’s leaders have launched a war of versions in order to derive political benefit.
It was a well-organized and meticulously timed campaign, featuring pinpoint precision. On Jan. 24, HaBayit HaYehudi Chair Education Minister Naftali Bennett succeeded in establishing himself as the sole hero of 2014’s Operation Protective Edge among all the members of the Security Cabinet.
The reason behind this assault on the media is the state comptroller’s report on the war in Gaza, which is expected to be released in the next few days, and which (reportedly) includes sharp criticism of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and then-Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon. Tensions in the political arena surrounding the report’s release, combined with Jan. 24’s annual conference of the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), resulted in a battle of conflicting versions of events.
What turned their conflict into all-out war was the fact that these members of the Cabinet during Operation Protective Edge are still in the political arena, with some of them eying the prime minister’s office for themselves. These include Moshe Ya’alon, who was then the minister of defense; Avigdor Liberman, who was the foreign minister and has since replaced Ya’alon as defense minister; Naftali Bennett, then economy and trade minister; Yair Lapid, then finance minister and now a member of the Opposition; and of course Netanyahu.
The report is scheduled for publication next week. Until then, the multiple versions of events, the leaks, the quotes, as well as the storm brewing on social networks, will remain intermingled. As of now, Bennett is the winner in the media and is likely to benefit politically from it. And so, instead of engaging in a meaningful discussion about a report that presents serious failings in the actions of the Cabinet and military leadership, politicians are responding by turning the report into a tool to serve their narrow self-interests. This is why, even before published, the report is already losing its effectiveness.
