When Yair Golan redefines the role of the IDF

The chairman of the Democrats party, former Deputy Chief of Staff, the man who explained to the world that "a sane country does not kill babies as a hobby," and who identified "horrifying processes" that reminded him of Nazi Germany — strikes again. Or for the third time. Or for the 5,000th time.

This time we were privileged to hear pearls of wisdom on Omri Assenheim's program on Channel 13, which aired this past weekend. In the interview, the head of the Democrats party explained why he opposes the appointment of Roman Gofman as head of the Mossad and David Zini as head of the Shin Bet.

He explains why, when he knowingly uses the "neighbor procedure" contrary to the Supreme Court's position — it is fine, but any other person who does it undermines the foundations of democracy. He is convinced that if he had been Chief of Staff, October 7 would have been prevented, and many other such pearls of wisdom, of love for Israel, and of course — of adherence to democratic values.

But perhaps the most sparkling pearl concerned his worldview, which was formed during his service as a battalion commander in Shechem:

"I knew that any incident I ended with a wounded Palestinian was a good incident. Because he goes to the hospital, he will no longer be in the cycle of attacks, but it does not stir up the territory. Every Palestinian I kill — I harm the security situation. Why? Because it is a house of mourning, it is incitement, you are creating the next attacks. The role of the IDF is to calm the territory, not to inflame the territory!"

Let's start at the beginning: it is well known that someone who is wounded and recovers will never return to the "cycle of attacks," as the light of the diaspora Yair Golan calls it, who believes that there has never been a terrorist who was wounded and returned to murder Jews. Mohammed Deif, for example.

Another interesting flaw in this perfectly logical sentence is the use of the word "cycle." A cycle, meaning it is about violence that leads to violence. And if one side, let's say the Israeli side, stops being violent — then the other side, for example the Palestinian one, will also stop. A cycle is something that can be broken, if only the IDF would lay down its weapons.

Let's continue: "Every Palestinian I kill — I harm the security situation," or as Assenheim, the neutral interviewer, phrased it: "inflames the hatred." Meaning, it is forbidden to kill those who come to kill you, neither beforehand nor in retrospect. It would be quite enough to just wound him.

And after we have established this brilliant principle, comes the unequivocal determination of the IDF's role: to calm the territory, and not to inflame it. Really? Who decided that? As far as I know, Basic Law: The Army says that the role of the IDF is "to protect the existence of the State of Israel and its independence, and to thwart enemy efforts to disrupt normal life within it." Not "to calm the territory" — more to win the war, if it comes. What luck that he was not Chief of Staff, truly a miracle.

Imagine, for example, what kind of weapons the IDF would have under his command — only such that wound. What would the last war have looked like? If killing terrorists inflames the territory — not to mention arch-terrorists — surely Hassan Nasrallah would have continued to give speeches without interruption, and the Hamas leadership would have felt very safe in Gaza, because no one would have threatened their lives.

I can only wonder who votes for this man and what drives him.