Not on the Military Advocate General's line: What is behind the struggle between the Treasury and the Chief of Staff

The exposure by Ynet and "Yedioth Ahronoth" regarding the disagreements between the Accountant General at the Ministry of Finance and the Chief of Staff concerning the financial benefits for the dismissed Military Advocate General has caused a stir. Defense Minister Israel Katz reprimanded Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir and demanded that he be stricter with the Military Advocate General, Yifat Tomer-Yerushalmi. The major dispute between the Chief of Staff and the Accountant General is indeed about her, but it is rooted in a power struggle between the two - who decides.

The letters from the head of the Manpower Directorate to the Accountant General, which were written with the involvement of the Military Advocate General's Corps, argued more for the Chief of Staff's exclusive authority to decide on them than they dealt with the conditions of Tomer-Yerushalmi's dismissal. In fact, the same applies to the Accountant General's letter, in which she cited legal sources and the Supreme Court's ruling regarding her own authority to determine; she even noted that initially, the IDF did not involve the army accountant at all in the matter. According to the Chief of Staff, since the command decision to dismiss the Military Advocate General is his and was given by him, then so are the financial conditions of the dismissal, which he determined.

In contrast, the Accountant General believes that while the command decision and its financial conditions are indeed entrusted to the Chief of Staff, his decisions are also subject to the law, and they must be made reasonably and while weighing all the data in accordance with the rules of administrative law. Just as the Accountant General was accepted as a gatekeeper over the government and other state authorities, so it is regarding the IDF and the Chief of Staff's decisions, which must be professionally examined by the accountant.

Between command authority and financial consequences

The Accountant General's letter to the head of the Manpower Directorate details the sequence of events in the affair, and the references to the fact that she has the final say in decisions on the salaries of state employees, including IDF soldiers. The Accountant General claims that the Chief of Staff's command authority to determine the retirement conditions of the former Military Advocate General does not grant the IDF exclusive authority to also determine the financial and pension consequences of the decision, and that these are subject to the supervision and control mechanisms of the Accountant General.

According to her, the Accountant General's powers are based on the provisions of the law, government decisions, and the TAKAM (finance and economy regulations) instructions, including the State Property Law and the budget and arrangements laws applicable in the field of salaries and pensions. She notes that the Accountant General is the body entrusted by the Minister of Finance with managing state funds, supervision, and control over the execution of payments and state obligations.

She also wrote that "your definition of the decision as a 'command authority' does not grant it immunity from the provisions of the law, the rules of administrative law, and the control mechanisms applicable to it". "In conclusion, it has no validity".

IDF Response

The IDF Spokesperson's Unit responded: "The Chief of Staff's decision regarding the former Military Advocate General is a precedent-setting decision which is consistent with the great severity with which he viewed her actions. The Chief of Staff took, in accordance with his authority, severe and unprecedented steps regarding the retirement format, and even determined that these steps in her case, and additional steps, will be examined in accordance with the completion of the legal procedure being conducted against her in the civil judicial system.

The Accountant General's reference in the published letter will be examined together with her and the relevant bodies in the IDF in the coming days, and will be answered substantively. We remind you that the continuation of the procedure regarding the former Military Advocate General is pending before the civil judicial system, and the IDF is waiting for the completion of the procedure".