Speaking to Channel 14 on Sunday night, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said of Maj. Gen. Dado Bar Kalifa, the head of the IDF Personnel Directorate and a former commander of the 36th Division, that "I announced that I decided to carry out the intention and to appoint him as the general in charge of Central Command" [1]. Katz added, "By the way, the chief of staff recommended him" [1]. The Central Command post is held by Maj. Gen. Avi Bluth [1].
On Monday, Katz said reports that he had removed Bluth were "a complete lie" and "part of a political campaign directed against the government" [1]. His account of Sunday night is that he had moved only to "advance his appointment in accordance with procedures," and that the process long predated the broadcast: "In other words, months before the interview [I conducted with Bar Kalifa], the chief of staff's recommendation had already been made, approved by me, and the appointment process was already well underway" [1].
Both statements are quoted above in the words they were made in. Sunday's uses the past tense of a completed decision. Monday's says no dismissal was announced. Readers can hold the two together without any help from us.
The removal does not stand. The military put out what the Times of Israel described as a sharp statement saying Bluth would remain in his post, on the ground that the defense minister does not have the authority to unilaterally fire senior army officers [1]. IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir reportedly decided on Monday to freeze senior appointments in the military, to protect the army from political interference, until at least after the general election set for October 27 [1]. If that freeze holds as reported, Bar Kalifa does not take Central Command before the vote, and Bluth is not replaced in it.
The dispute underneath the personnel question is narrower and more concrete than the constitutional argument that has grown around it. Bluth sought to renew an administrative restraining order against Tal Yinon Dardik, a settler who allegedly took part in a March attack on Palestinians [1]. A week ago that order was repealed on a technicality, and Katz instructed Bluth not to renew it [1]. Katz described the disagreement on Channel 14 in terms of who sets policy: "They did it against my position. It was the wrong step," he said, adding that "[The IDF's West Bank commander] must take my policy into account, and I will insist on this" [1].
Katz set out the standard he wants from commanders in the same interview: "In the north, the south and the center, I want an IDF that strives for decisive victory, an IDF that hurts its enemies, and protects the settlers" [1].
The criticism the Times of Israel collected came from former defense ministers, former chiefs of staff and opposition politicians, which is to say from people with a stake in the outcome. That does not make the objection wrong, and it does mean the objection is not arriving from a neutral quarter. Both facts belong to the reader.
Benny Gantz said "The attempt to turn discussions on IDF postings into part of the Likud primary campaign hurts the nation's security" [1]. Gadi Eisenkot, a former IDF chief of staff, called the episode "an unprecedented low point in relations between the political and military echelons" [1]. Yoav Gallant, a former defense minister, said the move "crosses another red line" [1].
Avigdor Liberman, the Yisrael Beytenu leader and himself a former defense minister, said that "anyone who acts solely based on the consideration of party primaries and central committee members is not fit or worthy to serve as Israel's defense minister" [1]. Elazar Stern, a Yesh Atid lawmaker and retired officer, said Katz "is working for [party] primaries and not the security of Israel," and called on the prime minister to fire him [1]. Gilad Erdan, a former ambassador to the United Nations and a former Likud figure, called it "petty politics at the expense of our security," adding: "This is not right-wing. This is a corrupted right-wing that shames us all" [1].
No response from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appears in the reporting [1]. Nothing in the article resolves whether Sunday's statement was a slip, a trial balloon, or an accurate description of a decision Katz retreated from once the military answered. The article does not try to settle it, and neither will we.
What the reporting does settle is the institutional question, and that is the part with consequences past this week. The appointment authority Katz described on air is not his to exercise alone. The military said so within hours. The chief of staff then removed the whole category of senior appointments from play until after October 27.
The stake is not one general's career. Bluth's disagreement with Katz was over whether to renew a restraining order on one settler in the West Bank, and the answer to that determines what happens to the Palestinians named in the March incident and to Dardik himself. A defense minister who can move a regional commander over that call effectively makes the call. One who cannot, does not. That is what Monday settled, at least until the end of October.
