Perhaps it is time to rethink the security of senior officials

To understand the necessity of a commission of inquiry not only into the events of October 7 but also into the management of the war that followed, it is worth looking at a secret conversation detailed in a film released this week about Senator Lindsey Graham. It turns out that in March of this year, Graham suggested to Benjamin Netanyahu that he influence the USA to join the campaign against Hezbollah, but Netanyahu was skeptical. According to him, it was better for the USA to focus on Iran. Netanyahu may have been right, but it is also possible that this was the second time he thwarted an aggressive strike against Hezbollah, thereby preventing an early decisive victory and prolonging the suffering of the residents of the North. As is known, even days after October 7, when the army requested to attack in the North, Netanyahu opposed it. Instead, Israel waited almost a year until the pager operation, dragging out the campaign against Hezbollah, which has still not been defeated. Netanyahu prides himself, rightly, on military achievements. The question is whether those achievements could have been greater with bolder and wiser management.

Diplomatic strategy also suffers from a recurring erroneous pattern. Until six months ago, the President of Lebanon publicly offered peace with Israel alongside a struggle against Hezbollah in exchange for an Israeli withdrawal. However, the government refused, demanding that Lebanon first disarm Hezbollah. Time passed, the Americans intervened, Israel succumbed to pressure, and last week a "pilot" for a gradual Israeli withdrawal began—only without peace. Would it not have been better to accept the Lebanese proposal immediately? A similar thing is happening in Gaza. At the end of the war, a plan was prepared under which a "Peace Council," composed of several countries, was to enter Gaza to rehabilitate it and gradually replace the Hamas regime. On the face of it, this served Israeli interests. However, the government opposed the start of the "Peace Council's" operations, demanding that Hamas first be completely disarmed. As in Lebanon, so too in Gaza, eventually, following American pressure, Israel agreed this week to allow the council to enter the Strip. Would it not have been correct to take the initiative and encourage the start of rehabilitation work while simultaneously pushing Hamas out of its military wing? Until a year ago, Syrian President Julani also offered peace with Israel in exchange for a withdrawal from the Syrian Golan Heights, without demanding the heights captured in '67. However, the government preferred to remain on the Syrian Golan Heights. Now, it has become known that a security agreement with Syria is being formed, under which we will withdraw partially after all—only without peace. It is clear that eventually we will have to withdraw from the Syrian heights, but by then Damascus may be under Turkish influence and will not agree to peace without a withdrawal from the Israeli Golan Heights as well.

Recently, reports of Iranian attempts to harm senior officials and former officials have been increasing, and in this context, the Netanyahu family's demand to provide lifetime security for Sara Netanyahu has arisen. The threats are real and should not be taken lightly. But perhaps it is time to think differently about the security of senior officials. Of course, the Prime Minister and official representatives must be protected, but alongside this, it is expected that they bear the burden of the risks of the position they sought for themselves. There were times when Israel's leaders took this into account. Ben-Gurion demanded to sit at the head of a jeep climbing to Jerusalem during the War of Independence; Moshe Dayan walked without a helmet as bullets whistled over his head when he visited officers on the Golan during the Yom Kippur War; Arik Sharon used to jump into meetings deep in enemy territory during the First Lebanon War. Whoever wants to lead must know that just as he receives benefits, so he also puts himself in danger. Leaders should not be immune to dangers when other citizens are exposed to them.